Gujarat High Court
The Divisional Railway Manager vs The Secretary, Paschim Railway ... on 13 October, 2021
Bench: A. P. Thaker
C/LPA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 680 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14355 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 680 of 2021
==========================================================
THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
Versus
THE SECRETARY, PASCHIM RAILWAY KARMACHARI PARISHAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4)-G/4 for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 13/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Ms.Archana Amin for
the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Maulik Nanavati
for Nanavati & Co. for respondent No.1. Respondent
No.2 is Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court
which is served but it has no role in the
controversy.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal at the instance
of the original petitioner - the Divisional Railway
Manager, Rajkot, is directed against judgment dated
30th January, 2020 of learned Single Judge in Special
Civil Application No.14355 of 2017.
2.1 Learned Single Judge partly modified
judgment and award of Central Government Industrial
Tribunal impugned in the appeal, directing the
Railways to impose punishment on the respondent -
C/LPA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
workman of stoppage of yearly increments with
permanent effect, not disturbing the rest of the
directions in the judgment and award. In the main
Special Civil Application, the Divisional Manager,
Railways, had prayed to set aside the said judgment
and award raising various grounds.
2.2 The CGIT struck down the orders dated 20 th
September, 1993 and 19th April, 2017 passed by the
railway authority, further directing reinstatement of
the workman with all consequential benefits.
3. The facts briefly stated were that the
respondent - workman was appointed on the post of
Cleaner, Class-IV on 22nd November, 1979 in the pay-
scale of 750-940. on 16th September, 1990 he was
transferred to Mehsana from Ahmedabad on the same
post and same pay-scale. It appears that chargesheet
was issued against the workman for remaining absent
without prior leave. Appellant Railways however
passed order dated 19th February, 1992 permitting the
workman to resume duties at Rajkot Division as a
Cleaner. In the departmental proceedings undertaken
against the workman, the disciplinary authority
finally imposed the punishment on the workman of
removal from service.
3.1 In course of consideration of the petition,
appreciating the submission on behalf of the Railways
that the CGIT needed to examine the proportionality
of the punishment, as the proceedings in the
departmental inquiry were never challenged by the
C/LPA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
workman, learned Single Judge observed that once the
CGIT was to examine the legality, appropriateness and
justness of the action on part of the Railways in
terminating the services of the workman, the CGIT can
go into the proportionality of punishment.
3.2 In the above limited aspect which the
learned Single Judge proposed to examine, the
submission on behalf of the appellant - Railways was
that disciplinary authority may examine on the
quantum of punishment. Paragraph 10.13 of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge records as
under.
"10.13 Noticing that the respondent-workman has
already attained the age of superannuation in the
year 2017, the submission made on the part of the
learned Advocate, Ms. Amin, to relegate the parties
to the Disciplinary Authority, for it to decide the
quantum of punishment for the charges proved against
the respondent-workman, is not being acceded to.
Ordinarily, this is the task to be undertaken by the
Disciplinary Authority and the Courts are not to
assume that role. However, it is again a settled
principle of law that, in exceptional cases, exercise
of such powers by the Courts would be necessary and
this Court finds this to be a one such case."
4. Learned advocate for the appellant assailed
the impugned order of learned Single Judge on various
grounds to submit that the punishment could not have
been substituted. She submitted that various legal
issues were required to be addressed with regard to
the order of learned Single Judge.
5. Having carefully gone through the order of
learned Single Judge, more particularly noticing from
paragraph 10.13 of the order that it was the
C/LPA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
submission on behalf of the appellant Railways itself
for deciding on the quantum of punishment for the
charges proved against the workman and to require the
disciplinary authority to undertake the said
exercise, the we find that the final order passed by
the learned Single Judge providing penalty of
stoppage of two yearly increments with future effect
does not contain any infirmity.
5.1 It was on the basis of the concessional
submission put forth on behalf of the railway
authorities, learned Single Judge considered the
aspects that the workman has attained the age of
superannuation in the year 2017 and was nearing the
date of superannuation, that he was 62 years of age
and no purpose would be served to relegate the
parties to the disciplinary authorities. Learned
Single Judge accordingly delved into proportionality
aspect and passed order imposing the punishment of
stoppage of two increments with future effect and
thus partially modified the judgment and award passed
in Reference.
5.2 Once there was a suggestion and concession
from the appellant - petitioner itself about quantum
of punishment, merely because the case was not sent
to the disciplinary for the purpose but the issue was
addressed by learned Single Judge to provide for
lesser punishment considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the order cannot be said
to be booking any error. Learned Single Judge rightly
observed that it was permissible for Court to go into
C/LPA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
the proportionality of the punishment. For that, the
factors like superannuation of the workman and other
attendant aspects of merit were taken into account.
6. We do not find any ground to have been
validly urged by the appellant to interfere with the
impugned order of learned Single Judge. It does not
contain any error or illegality.
6.1 As regards the repeated submission on part
of learned advocate for the appellant that several
other issues of law are required to be addressed, we
are of the view that all such issues pale into
insignificance in above light and in view of the
premise of the recorded in paragraph 10.13 by learned
Single Judge. We observe and clarify, however, that
all such issues are deemed to have been not gone into
by us as not required to be gone into.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal stands meritless
in light of above. Therefore summarily dismissed.
Notice is discharged.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION
As the main Letters Patent Appeal is
summarily dismissed by the even date order, no order
is required to be passed in the Civil Application and
it stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is
discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)
ANUP
