V. K. Tiwari Vs Union of India

1

 NAFR

¶3

2025:CGHC:47212-DB

¶4

HARNEET KAUR

¶5

Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.17 11:27:47 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

Writ Petition (S) No. 799 of 2024

¶8

V. K. Tiwari S/o Shri R.N. Tiwari Aged About 52
Years R/o Qr. No. 206, Rail Vihar Colony, Main
Road Deorikhurd Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin-
495004

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager,
Sec Railways, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (O.P.)
Sec Railways, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur,
Bilaspur, District- Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495004

¶12

3 - Additional Senior Rly Manager Sec Railways,
Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgar. Pin- 495004

¶13

 … Respondents

¶14

`For Petitioner`	`:Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate`
`For Respondents`	`:Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy.S.G.`

¶15

2

¶16

DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶17

15.09.2025

¶18

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶19

1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner herein

¶20

has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
questioningthelegality,validityand
correctness of impugned order dated 19/10/2023
(Annexure P/1) passed by Learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench whereby
Original Application No. 203/00349/2018 filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed, finding no
merit.

¶21

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

¶22

(i) The petitioner, while working as a Loco
Pilot Goods, was subjected to show cause notice
on 01/09/2017 (Annexure P/2) alleging that while
being on duty, he has committed serious
misconduct on 28/08/2017 as while working train
no. N/JSLK with loco no. 27291/NKJ, he failed to
observe STOP board and entered into non-OHE zone
at KDTR dead end siding at RIG end and thus, he

¶23

3

¶24

contravened the provision of Rule 3.1(ii) and
(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,
1966 (hereinafter, “the Rules of 1966”) and has
rendered himself liable for disciplinary action
under the Railway Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter, “the Rules of
1968”).

¶25

(ii) Petitioner submitted his written reply to
the show cause notice on 28/09/2017 denying the
said allegation (Annexure P/3). However, the
Disciplinary Authority found the reply of the
petitioner to be unsatisfactory and imposed a
penalty of withholding of one annual increment
for a period of three years with cumulative
effect by order dated 08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4).

¶26

(iii) Petitioner then preferred an appeal before
the Appellate Authority against the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein by order
dated 27/02/2018 (Annexure P/6), the Appellate
Authority partly modified the order of the
Disciplinary Authority and reduced the period of
cumulative effect from three years to two years.

¶27

(iv) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied,
petitioner preferred original application before

¶28

4

¶29

the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by
impugned order dated 19/10/2023 (Annexure P/1),
finding no merit against which the instant writ
petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶30

3. Dr. Veena Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that all the

¶31

authorities including the Central Administrative
Tribunal has failed to consider the provision
contained under Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1968
which clearly provides that in order to withhold
increments of pay with cumulative effect for any

¶32

period, before making any order imposing on the
Railway servant any such penalty, an inquiry
shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-

¶33

rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968

¶34

and since the Disciplinary Authority did not

¶35

conduct any departmental inquiry before imposing
the punishment of withholding of increment with

¶36

cumulative effect, the order impugned is

¶37

arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal confirming the order of the Appellate
Authority as well as the order passed by the

¶38

5

¶39

Disciplinary Authority is liable to be set
aside.

¶40

4. Per contra, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents/Union of India, would support the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and submit that petitioner has the remedy of revision available under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1968, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinunder and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶42

6. It is not in dispute that petitioner was subjected to show cause notice and after considering his representation, he was inflicted with penalty of withholding one annual increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect by order dated 08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority partly modified the order of the Disciplinary Authority and reduced cumulative effect from three years

¶43

6

¶44

to two years by its order dated 30/11/2017
(Annexure P/5), which was also confirmed by the
Tribunal in the original application preferred
by the petitioner by order impugned dated
19/10/2023 (Annexure P/1).

¶45

7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1968, which state as under :-

¶46

“11. Procedure for imposing minor
penalties. - (1) XXX

¶47

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained
in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a
case, it is proposed, after considering
the representation, if any, made by the
Railway servant under clause (a) of that
sub-rule to withhold increments of pay
and such withholding of increments is
likely to affect adversely the amount of
pension or special contribution to
Provident Fund payable to the Railway
servant or to withhold increments of pay
for a period exceeding three years or to
withhold increments of pay with
cumulative effect for any period, an
inquiry shall be held in the manner laid
down in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9,
before making any order imposing on the
Railway servant any such penalty.”

¶48

8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision

¶49

would show that in a case where the Disciplinary
Authority comes to the conclusion that
penalty of withholding of increment with
cumulative effect has to be imposed, firstly,

¶50

7

¶51

inquiry shall be held in view of the provisions
contained under Rule 9, sub-rule (6) to (25) of
the Rules of 1968 and thereafter, the order of
imposing penalty has to be passed, as Rule 9 of
the Rules of 1968 provides the procedure that
has to be followed for imposing penalties.

¶52

9. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab 1, has clearly held that imposition of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major penalty under Rule 5(v) of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, without conducting regular enquiry as enjoined by Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules is per seillegal and mere service of show cause notice preceding the order imposing such penalty is not enough.

¶53

10. Coming to the facts of the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, no inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner as per the procedure laid down in Rule 9, sub-rule (6) to (25) of the Rules of 1968 in view of the mandatory provision contained under Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1968 and straightway, the

¶54

1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504

¶55

8

¶56

Disciplinary Authority has passed the order
dated 08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4) imposing penalty
of withholding of one annual increment for a
period of three years with cumulative effect
upon him, which is absolutely unsustainable and
bad in law. After issuing the show cause notice

¶57

and after considering the representation of the
petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority ought to
have conducted inquiry as per sub-rule (6) to
(25) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 and
thereafter, would have passed the order imposing
major penalty. Therefore, the order dated
08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4) passed by the
Disciplinary Authority, imposing penalty of
withholding of one annual increment for a period
of three years with cumulative effect against

¶58

the petitioner, the order dated 30/11/2017

¶59

(Annexure P/5) passed by the Appellate
Authority, partly modifying the order of the
Disciplinary Authority and reducing the
cumulative effect from three years to two years,
as well as the order dated 19/10/2023 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, confirming the order of the Appellate

¶60

9

¶61

Authority, are hereby set aside. Petitioner is

¶62

entitled for all consequential benefits.

¶63

11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶64

Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge

¶65

Harneet

V. K. Tiwari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. K. Tiwari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs M/S Prakriti Industries

State of Chhattisgarh, Vs M/s Prakriti Industries

State of Chhattisgarh, Vs M/s Mohini Industries

Jaipal, Vs Government of M.P.

Mecon Limited Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Smt. Rashmi Sahu Vs Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee