Bombay High Court
Union Of India,Thr.General ... vs P.R.Kumbhare,Chief Goods ... on 12 June, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 Judg. wp 3775.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.3775 of 2000
1] Union of India,
through its General Manager,
Central Railway, V.T. Mumbai.
2] The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur.
3] Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Central Railway, Nagpur.
4] Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur.
5] Chief Commercial Manager,
Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai.
.... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1] P.R. Kumbhare,
Chief Goods Supervisor, Central Railway,
Nagpur.
2] The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Camp Nagpur. .... Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.H. Khobragade, Advocate holding for Shri R.G. Agrawal, Advocate
for petitioners.
None for respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2017 00:04:16 :::
2 Judg. wp 3775.00.odt
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 12 June, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated
16-06-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short,
"the Tribunal"] in Original Application No.305 of 1995 allowing the
claim of respondent no.1 to set aside the penalty imposed by an order
dated 02-03-1995 which was modified by the Appellate Authority on
05-01-1996 and confirmed in revision on 04-08-1997.
2] The petitioner was working as a Chief Goods Supervisor at
Nagpur Railway Station. A departmental enquiry was conducted
against him on the following two charges :-
"1. THAT Shri Kumbhare in conjunction with
Shri H.T. Sorte, SCI(S) NGP granted open
delivery/assessment of goods booked under RR No.
029146 dated 7.7.88 Ex.Dharma Nagar to NGP and
assessed the shortages and damages to the tune of
Rs.51150.30, when the same was not within their
jurisdiction as stipulated in CCO.C.Rly.BBVTs
circular NO.C.529.C/Pt.VII dt. 14.6.89.
2. That Shri Kumbhare granted open delivery
without the presence of RPF. personal and
ultimately contravened Rule 1840 of IRCM Vol.II."
3 Judg. wp 3775.00.odt
3] The respondent no.1 was held guilty of both the charges and
accordingly major punishment was imposed upon him of reducing to
a stage of Rs. 2,825/- from Rs. 2,975/- in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200
(RPS) for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The
appellate Authority by an order dated 05.01.1996 reduced the
punishment and instead of reduction by two stages in the time scale
for a period of two years with cumulative effect, it was made for a
period of one year with cumulative affect. This was the modification
which was confirmed in revision on 04-08-1997.
4] The challenge to the imposition of the major punishment
before the Tribunal succeeded. The Tribunal has recorded the
finding that there was no explanation for delay of 5 years caused in
completing the enquiry and it was a mala fide action for extraneous
consideration. The Tribunal has accordingly allowed the Original
Application by setting aside the orders of the punishment. The
Management of the Railway is before this Court in this Writ Petition.
5] With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, we have gone through the findings recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority and also by the Tribunal. It is not the finding
recorded by the Tribunal that the enquiry conducted against the
respondent no.1 was vitiated on any grounds. It does not record the
4 Judg. wp 3775.00.odt
findings on merits of the charges levelled against the respondent no.1.
It does not hold that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary
Authority are perverse and not supported by any material available
on record. It is also not the ground that the enquiry conducted was
in violation of the principles of natural justice or the procedure
prescribed for conducting enquiry to impose major punishment.
6] The only ground taken into consideration by the Tribunal is
delay of 5 years caused in conducting an enquiry, in support of
which, it does not find explanation to its satisfaction and it further
holds that the delay was not bona fide, but was for the extraneous
consideration. The Tribunal further holds that the action was mala
fide. However, there are particulars of the allegations of mala fides.
It is not the case that the members of the Enquiry Committee or
Appellate or Revisional Authority were against the respondent no.1.
No specific allegations of mala fides are levelled nor the persons
against whom such allegations were made were joined as party
respondents by their name. Merely because there was a delay and
the Tribunal found that the delay is not properly explained it could
not have been a ground for setting aside the punishment imposed
particularly when there is neither any prejudice shown to the
respondent no.1 nor the findings recorded by the Disciplinary
Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority on
5 Judg. wp 3775.00.odt
merits of the charges have not been gone into. We fail to understand
the basis of holding that the enquiry was tainted with some
extraneous consideration. The finding is of serious in nature and
without joining the persons as party respondents in this petition
against whom the extraneous consideration was alleged. The order
of the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained.
7] In the result, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the
judgment and order dated 16-06-2000 passed by the Tribunal in
Original Application No.305 of 1995. The said Original Application
is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
