Rajasthan High Court
U O I And Ors vs Narayan Kumar Srivastava Anr on 16 February, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11524/2011
1. Union of India, through the General Manager, West-Central
Railway, Jabalpur (M.P.).
2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Sr. Divisional Engineer
(Coordination), West Central Railway, Kota.
3. Shri J.R. Kothari Senior Inquiry Officer, Vigilance Cell, General
Manager's Office, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.P.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Narayan Kumar Srivastava S/o Late Shri Bhairo Prasad
Srivastava, aged about 48 years, R/o House of Ramakant Gupta,
Rubber Factory Road, Bhimganj Mandi, Kota Rajasthan, Working
as Chief Law Assistant (Eng. Deptt.), West Central Railway, Kota.
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
through its Registrar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mukesh Agarwal Advocate
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Judgment / Order
16/02/2021
Petitioners have filed the petition challenging the order dated
18.04.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur
Bench Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby,
original application filed by respondent No.1 was allowed.
(2 of 4) [CW-11524/2011]
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
Tribunal has erred in considering that the charge-sheet was issued
by Senior Divisional Railway Manager, whereas, it had been issued
by Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination). Learned counsel has
submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in holding that only
Senior Deputy General Manager was competent to issue the
charge-sheet. Learned counsel has submitted that Senior
Divisional Engineer (Coordination) was competent to issue the
charge-sheet as the respondent No.1 was working under the said
officer.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the
petition and has submitted that admittedly charge-sheet had been
issued by Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination). As per
Annexure-A/3 attached with the original application, the legal
organisation should be under Additional Divisional Railway
Manager through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer in all
divisions. Respondent No.1 was working at divisional level, hence,
the charge-sheet could have been issued to him either by
Additional Divisional Railway Manager or Senior Divisional
Personnel Officer. In this regard, learned counsel has placed
reliance on Railway Board letter dated 16.10.1973.
Respondent No.1 was working as Chief Law Assistant with
the Railways at Kota. Admittedly, charge-sheet has been issued
against the respondent No.1 by Senior Divisional Engineer
(Coordination), Kota Division vis-à-vis major penalty.
Annexure-A/3 attached with the original application is a letter by
Director, Establishment (Gaz. Cadre) Railway Board dated
09.03.2006. As per Annexure-III to the said letter, the legal
organization should be under Additional Divisional Railway
(3 of 4) [CW-11524/2011]
Manager through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer in all
divisions.
Learned Tribunal has based reliance on para-3 of Railway
Board Letter dated 16.10.1973 and the same as reproduced in the
order by the Tribunal reads as under:-
"The matter has been carefully considered by the Board
and in consultation with their legal adviser, it is clarified
that a Railway servant essentially belongs to only one
Department even though, in the course of the
performance of his day-to-day duties, he may violate
certain rules/regulations administered by some other
Department. The Assistant Station Master and the Station
Master belong to the Operating Department even though
they may have to perform the duties pertaining to the
Commercial Department also from time to time. The
Disciplinary Authorities, in their cases, would thus belong
only to the Operating Department and none else. If any
other practice is being followed that is irregular and
should be stopped forthwith. Disciplinary action should be
initiated and finalized by the authorities under whose
administrative control the delinquent employee may be
working as any other procedure would not be in keeping
with the instructions referred to in Para I above (For
General manager/Central Railway only: This disposes of
his letter No.HFC/CoH/309/RII dated 24.02.1973 and
30.08.1973.)"
Thus, as per the above letter, disciplinary action should be
initiated and finalized by the authorities under whose
administrative control the delinquent employee may be working.
In the present case, respondent No.1 was working under
administrative control of Additional Divisional Railway Manager.
(4 of 4) [CW-11524/2011]
So far as the legal organization is concerned, as per
Annexure-A/3, the same should be under Additional Divisional
Railway Manager through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer in all
divisions.
In these circumstances, the charge-sheet could have been
issued against the respondent No.1 by Additional Divisional
Railway Manager or Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. However,
in the present case, the charge-sheet was issued by Senior
Divisional Engineer (Coordination).
Thus, the learned Tribunal had rightly held that the charge-
sheet had not been issued against the respondent No.1 by the
competent authority and had rightly quashed the same. However,
it is clarified that the competent authority to issue the charge-
sheet would be Additional Divisional Railway Manager or Senior
Divisional Personnel Officer and would not be Senior Deputy
General Manager. Tribunal while quashing the charge-sheet issued
against respondent No.1 has given liberty to the petitioners to
issue fresh charge-sheet by the competent authority as per rules.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J (SABINA),J
Sanjay Kumawat-41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
