Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Another vs Shri Rishipal Singh on 6 November, 2008
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2215 of 2007
Judgment reserved on: October 1, 2008
% Judgment delivered on: November 06, 2008
1. Union of India
through the General Manager
Northern Railway
Baroda House, New Delhi
2. The Divisional Railway Manager
Northern Railway, Moradabad ...Petitioners
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv.
Versus
Shri Rishipal Singh
S/o late Shri Manohar Singh
Pointsman, Railway Station Motichoor
Distt. Haridwar (Moradabad Divn.), U.P. ...Respondent
Through Ms. Meenu Mainee, Adv.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not Necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not Necessary
in the Digest?
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated
13th October, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2900 of 2005.
2. The Respondent was working as a West Cabin Signalman
with the Railways. It appears that there was a collision involving a
goods train. The Station Master, the Shunting Master as well as the
Respondent were departmentally proceeded against for the mishap.
3. In so far as the Respondent is concerned, the view taken by
the departmental enquiry officer was that on an interpretation of Rule
6.4.2.2 of the Station Regulations, the Respondent was obliged to ensure
that the nominated line is cleared not only upto Point No.33 (as
contended by the Respondent) but beyond that as well. Since he had
failed to satisfactorily perform his duties, the enquiry officer found the
Respondent guilty of the charges made against him. The disciplinary
authority accepted the view of the enquiry officer and imposed a penalty
of compulsory retirement from service. The appellate authority upheld
the view of the disciplinary authority but in revision, the punishment
awarded to the Respondent was that of reduction in pay.
4. The Respondent challenged the view taken by the
departmental authorities before the Tribunal which accepted his
contention and set aside the punishment awarded to him.
5. At this stage, it would be relevant to note Station Regulation
No.6.4.2.2. The relevant portion of this reads as follows:
"On receipt of line clear enquiry or at such earlier time as
may be found necessary and on receipt of line Admission
Book duly signed by Shunting jamadars on duty and Outdoor
Station Master (if one is one duty) the Station Master on duty
shall advise under private number to the Cabin Signalmen on
duty at West and West Outer cabins:
- the number and description of the train.
- the line number on which it is intended to be
received.
- whether or not any shunting is to be performed on
the train, and
- to stop shunting on, Across or fouling the
nominated line or on points leading to that line.
...............
The West Cabin Signalman after ensuring that the nominated
line is clear upto Point No. 33 shall release slot for UP Goods
Home Signal.
... ... ... ... ..."
6. A perusal of the above clearly indicates that the Respondent,
the West Cabin Signalman, is obliged to ensure that the nominated line
is clear upto Point No.33. There is no requirement for his ensuring that
the nominated line is clear beyond Point No.33 as held by the enquiry
officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. On this obvious
ground, the Tribunal decided in favour of the Respondent.
7. Otherwise also, the Respondent relied on Annexure A-7
before the Tribunal, which is also annexed to the writ petition as
Annexure P-2. This indicates that the West Outer Cabin from which the
train was coming and the reception signal which was to be lowered is
marked as `X' and West Cabin which was the trailing side manned by
the Respondent is marked as `Y'. On this basis, it was submitted that it
was the Shunting Master who had to allot a clear line for passage of the
train. The case of the Respondent was that the Shunting Master
committed a blunder in allotting line number 9 for reception of the train
which was already blocked. It was alleged that the Station Master also
committed a blunder by giving orders to receive the train on line No.10
even before the receipt of `Line Admission Book', although line No.10
was also blocked.
8. So far as the Respondent is concerned, he had to ensure that
the line was clear and free from obstruction at `Y' point as shown in the
sketch (Annexure P-2). Otherwise also, as per Rule 6.4.2.2, the
Respondent was required to ensure the clearance of the line for adequate
distance from the point where the train had to stop, that is upto point
No.33. According to the Respondent, he had released the slot on line
No.10 under the instructions of the Station Master and had ensured that
the end of the yard on his side was absolutely clear and free from
obstruction.
9. We are of the view that the Tribunal did not commit any
error in interpreting Station Regulation No.6.4.2.2. Its language is
absolutely clear and the Respondent could not be expected to over step
his jurisdiction which extends only upto Point No.33. There is no
dispute that the collision took place beyond Point No.33 and not within
the jurisdiction of the Respondent. We have also observed the trains
collided much before from the point his jurisdiction starts. The Tribunal
was, therefore, right in not accepting the view taken by the departmental
authorities.
10. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
November 06, 2008 SURESH KAIT, J
ncg
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has been
transmitted in the main Server.
