Disposed

The Union of India, v. M.Muraleedharan

Kerala HC27 Feb 2024OP (CAT)/225/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court original petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal decision on recovery of Rs.27,711/- from a railway employee penalised for negligence. The court held that recovery proceedings are independent of the disciplinary action and, given its finality, the Tribunal's order was legally unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned CAT order set aside; original petition disposed of.

The Union of India, Vs M.Muraleedharan — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA,

¶7

1945

¶8

OP (CAT) NO. 225 OF 2016

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2015 IN OA 1225/2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶10

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 IN OA:

¶11

1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003.

¶12

2 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003.

¶13

3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 002.

¶14

4 SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 002.

¶15

5 THE STATION MASTER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PAYYANNUR RS & P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

¶16

6 THE COMMERCIAL SUPERVISOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PAYYANNUR RS & P.O., PAYYANNUR,KANNUR DISTRICT670 307.

¶17

7 THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL INSPECTOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PAYYANNUR RS & P.O.,KANNUR-670 001.

¶18

BY ADVS.

¶19

SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS T.C.KRISHNA SR PANEL COUNSEL

¶20

O.P.(CAT)No.225 of 2016

¶21

..2..

¶22

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN OA:

¶23

M.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. M.RAVUNNY, ENQUIRY CUM RESERVATION SUPERVISOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KASARAGOD RAILWAY STATION-671 121, PERMANENT ADDRESS: MADATHIN KEEZHIL HOUSE, MUTTANNOOR P.O., VIA TIRUR.

¶24

BY ADVS. KALA T.GOPI KAILESH T. GOPI NISHITHA BALACHANDRAN SHAHANAZ SALIM

¶25

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶26

FOLLOWING:

¶27

O.P.(CAT)No.225 of 2016

¶28

..3..

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶31

The Railway is before this Court in this original petition challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶32

In a disciplinary action, a penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale by one stage for a period of six months was imposed on the respondent. That has became final. This was for the reason that the respondent/applicant, while working as an Enquiry-cum-Reservation Supervisor at Mangalore junction, was found negligent resulting in loss of Rs.27,711/-. Consequent upon the imposition of penalty, recovery was effected in three monthly instalments. The consequential recovery was only subject to the challenge before the tribunal. The tribunal, noting that the Railway did not proceed with other officials, found that respondent/applicant only was liable for the proportionate amount. It is to be noted that there was no proceedings

¶33

O.P.(CAT)No.225 of 2016

¶34

..4..

¶35

against any other officials other than the respondent/applicant. The findings of the disciplinary authority has become final as the loss caused to the Railway is to the tune of Rs.27,711/-. That means, in a consequential challenge, the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot reopen the entire proceedings to find out whether any other officials are also involved for the loss caused to the Railway. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this could have been treated as minor penalty and there can not be two penalties in a proceedings. The learned counsel referred to Rule 6 of Part III of The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The learned counsel points out that it is possible to recover the loss, if any, by imposing penalty and having not done, the Railway is precluded from recovering the loss by way of penalty.

¶36

We are unable to accept this argument. The proceedings relating to recovery are independent of the disciplinary action. Disciplinary proceeding was as against the negligence and the respondent/applicant was found guilty of negligence. Accordingly, a penalty was imposed. The negligence has already been determined in that proceedings

¶37

O.P.(CAT)No.225 of 2016

¶38

..5..

¶39

and consequently, the recovery was effected.

¶40

If that be the case, in view of the attainment of finality of the disciplinary action, we find that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and accordingly, we set aside the same.

¶41

This original petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶46

¶47

..6..

¶48

O.P.(CAT)No.225 of 2016

¶49

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 225/2016

¶50

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶51

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.J/C.419/OS/II/PAY-PRS/2012 DATED 24.09.2012 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE EXTRACT OF CHAPTER XXVII OF INDIAN RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE FOR THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE EXTRACT OF CHAPTER X OF INDIAN RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE FOR THE TRAFFIC (COMMERCIAL) DEPARTMENT. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.J/C.48/43/2012 DATED 24.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 28.06.2012 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ADVICE BEARING NO.J/C.48/43/2012 DATED 25.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶52

ANNEXURE R1 GIST OF ADMITTED DEBITS SHOWN AGAINST THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE R2 A COPY OF COMMERCIAL SUPERVISOR, PAYYANNUR'S LETTER DATED 18.03.2012.

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO. 1225/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT (ERNAKULAM BENCH).

¶54

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN OA 1225/2012.

¶55

O.P.(CAT)No.225 of 2016

¶56

..7..

¶57

EXHIBIT P3

¶58

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CAT (ERNAKULAM) BENCH IN OA 1225/2012 DATED 28-12-2015.

The Union of India, v. M.Muraleedharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India, v. M.Muraleedharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surabhi.G.S, Vs State of Kerala

Union of India Vs N.Naganathan

Southern Carbon & Chemicals Vs Sanjay Malhotra IAS

State of Kerala, Vs Aneesh Francis

Ida Sarojam Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kadeer Churian Parambil Vs Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk