Naveen Kumar Saini vs General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi & Ors

Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot on 25-07-2006 through the Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal and, on account of his satisfactory service, was promoted as Loco Pilot (Goods) on 20-12-2014 and posted in the Ambala Division of Northern Railway. While working in this capacity, a memorandum of charge sheet for minor penalty was served upon him alleging that a train suffered detention of 50 minutes due to his fault or default.

The applicant submitted a detailed representation on 29- 04-2015 requesting the disciplinary authority to supply certain documents necessary for submitting an effective reply to the charge sheet. These included Railway Board circulars authorizing an employee to run through his headquarters, clarifying booking even after performing less than normal duty at headquarters, and authorizing a minimum of 8 hours duty for running staff. However, the Sr. DME (O&F), Ambala refused to supply these documents and instead threatened ex-parte action in case no reply was submitted. The applicant contended that this refusal was unjustified, as the documents sought were defence documents essential for his case, and not merely prosecution documents cited in the charge sheet. He emphasized that denial of such relevant documents amounted to violation of reasonable opportunity of defence and principles of natural justice.

Thereafter, without prejudice to his demand for documents, the applicant submitted his representation on 16- 05-2015. However, the disciplinary authority, without properly considering his submissions, imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale by one stage for a period of 2 years and 11 months without cumulative effect, vide order dated 21-05-2015. The order merely reiterated the charges and failed to address the grounds raised by the applicant, including the issue of non-supply of relevant documents.

Aggrieved by this, the applicant filed a detailed appeal on 24-07-2015, but the appellate authority rejected the appeal, largely relying on a Railway Board circular without adequately considering the applicant's contentions. Subsequently, the applicant filed a revision petition before the Chief Operating Manager, Northern Railway, on 10-11-2015. The revisional authority, however, rejected the petition on 04-07-2016 on the ground of limitation, without examining the merits or the issues raised, including wrongful denial of defence documents.

Having exhausted all departmental remedies, the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking justice. It is submitted that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice. The charge itself is baseless and misconceived. The denial of relevant and vital defence documents on the ground that they were not part of the charge sheet is erroneous, especially when their applicability and existence were not disputed. Despite this, the applicant submitted his representation explaining the incident and denying responsibility for the detention. Both the disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to consider these aspects, and the revisional authority rejected the petition mechanically without application of mind. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside being arbitrary, discriminatory, and malafide.

Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant, Shri Naveen Kumar Saini, while working as Loco Pilot (Goods) at Headquarters Ambala, was ordered to work Goods Train No. MBCN with Loco No. 1151 OSPJ from Saharanpur, as he was available in the running room at Saharanpur. He signed on duty at 23:00 hours on 31.03.2015 and the train departed at 01:50 hours on 01.04.2015. The applicant arrived at Ambala Cantt at 03:25 hours and stopped the train at Line No. 9 despite the signal being clear for run through. At that point, his total duty was only 4 hours and 25 minutes.

It is submitted that the applicant demanded relief on the ground that the train was to proceed on the Rajpura-Bathinda-Rajpura section and he did not have route learning for that section. However, he was advised by the Crew Controller to proceed up to Rajpura where relief would be arranged. The respondents contend that the applicant had route knowledge of the main line up to Ludhiana and could have worked the train up to Rajpura, which falls on the main line. Despite this, the applicant insisted that his headquarters was at Ambala and refused to move beyond Ambala. Due to his refusal, another Loco Pilot, Shri Amit Kumar, had to be arranged to operate the train, resulting in a detention of 50 minutes.

Counsel for the respondents further submit that as per Railway Board instructions contained in letter dated 03.04.1992, the overall duty of running staff from the time of signing on should not ordinarily exceed 12 hours, and relief can be claimed thereafter. In the present case, the applicant had performed duty only for 4 hours and 25 minutes and therefore his refusal to continue duty was unjustified. Accordingly, a minor penalty charge sheet was issued to him on 15.04.2015 for his reluctance and refusal to perform assigned duties. After following due procedure, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of 2 years and 11 months.

It is submitted that the applicant preferred an appeal, which was duly considered and rejected by the appellate authority vide letter dated 14.08.2015. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a revision petition after a delay of about 8 months, whereas the prescribed period for filing such petition is 45 days. The revisional authority rightly rejected the petition on the ground of limitation.

On merits, counsel for the respondents state that the contents of various paragraphs of the original application either require no comments or are denied. With regard to the applicant's demand for documents, it is submitted that the documents sought were neither relied upon in the charge sheet nor was their relevance established by the applicant. Therefore, there was no obligation to supply such documents. The disciplinary authority had advised the applicant to obtain the documents from the Railway website, and it is denied that any threat was extended to him. It is further submitted that the standard procedure of indicating possible ex-parte action in case of non-submission of reply was followed. Reasons for non- supply of documents were duly recorded in the speaking order.

Counsel for the respondents assert that the representation dated 16.05.2015 submitted by the applicant was duly considered by the disciplinary authority before imposing the penalty. The order passed was a reasoned and speaking order, and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The appellate authority also rightly considered the relevant Railway Board circular dated 03.04.1992, and the applicant had misinterpreted certain instructions regarding running staff and headquarters.

It is further submitted that the revision petition was not rejected on merits due to repetition of facts but was rejected on account of inordinate delay, and no sufficient cause was shown by the applicant for such delay. The respondents maintain that the applicant was afforded full opportunity at every stage and no injustice has been caused to him. All orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities are legal, valid, and in accordance with the applicable rules.

Counsel for the respondents therefore contend that the grounds raised by the applicant are incorrect and untenable. The applicant has no case for interference by this Hon'ble Tribunal, and the original application is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder and submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the inquiry officer were under an obligation to provide all such documents as were required by the applicant for the purpose of his defence. The denial to supply these documents has seriously prejudiced the defence of the applicant and, on this ground alone, the punishment imposed upon him is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that no cogent or valid reasons were recorded while denying the said defence documents.

It is further submitted that the contention of the respondents that the applicant knowingly misinterpreted the instructions contained in Circular No. 7144 is specifically denied. It is submitted that the said circular is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The circular relied upon by the appellate authority was not relevant for denying the documents, particularly when such documents had already been treated as relevant by the inquiry officer.

It is further contended that the revisional authority ought to have condoned the delay and decided the revision petition on merits instead of rejecting it on technical grounds.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the pleadings and material available on record.

The admitted position which emerges from the record is that a minor penalty charge sheet was issued to the applicant and he had sought certain documents which, according to him, were necessary for effectively defending himself. It is also not in dispute that the said documents were not supplied to him. The stand of the respondents is that those documents were not relied upon in the charge sheet and their relevance was not established. However, it is well settled that the right of a charged employee is not confined only to the documents relied upon by the prosecution. If the delinquent seeks documents which may have some bearing on his defence, and their existence is not disputed, the same ought to be supplied unless there are cogent reasons for denial.

In the present case, the reasons assigned by the respondents for non-supply of the documents do not appear to be adequate or convincing. The record does not reflect that a reasoned decision was taken demonstrating why such documents were irrelevant from the standpoint of defence. This has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to the applicant to effectively defend himself, thereby causing prejudice.

Further, it is also evident that adequate time, as contemplated under the applicable rules, was not afforded to the applicant to submit his reply to the charge sheet. The requirement of granting reasonable time, ordinarily 14 days, is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice. Any curtailment of such opportunity, particularly when coupled with non-supply of relevant documents, vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant stand vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, both on the ground of non-supply of relevant defence documents and failure to grant adequate opportunity to respond.

Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 21.05.2015, the appellate authority dated 14.08.2015 and the revisional authority dated 04.07.2016 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of charge sheet. The disciplinary authority shall supply the documents sought by the applicant, subject to their availability and relevance, by passing a reasoned order in case of any denial, and thereafter grant the applicant adequate opportunity, including reasonable time as per rules, to submit his defence. The applicant shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, if so requested, and a fresh reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law.

It is directed that the whole exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges and all issues are left open to be decided by the disciplinary authority.

The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.