Union of India v. Kulamani Paikray
Case brief
What is this about?
A writ petition challenging the C.A.T.'s dismissal of a disciplinary petition against a retired railway employee who faced minor penalty for lack of devotion to duty was dismissed as inappropriate interference after a long period.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NO.15988 OF 2007
- 17.04.2019 By way of this writ petition, petitionersEast Coast Railways have challenged the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.229 of 2006, wherein initially the Division Bench had difference of opinion, for which the matter was referred to a third Member. Two questions those were posed before the learned third Member for adjudication, are as follows:-
“(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Administrative Member or the view taken by the Vice Chairman is correct;
(b) Whether one member of the Division Bench can adversely comment on the proposed order prepared and placed for concurrence by another Member in the manner as has been done in the present case.”
Taking into consideration the evidence on record, learned third Member in paragraphs 4 to 7 observed as under:-
“4. The applicant a loco pilot driver on 30-7-2005 requested for relief at Kurdha Road, while direction from his higher authorities was that he would work the train till Palasa. The intimation (Annexure A-1) by the applicant was in advance and taking due action, respondents have made available at Khurdha necessary relief and the concerned train continued its journey without any unnecessary detention. It was this act of request for relief at Khurdha Road that was
2
considered to be “lack of devotion to duty” and action taken against the applicant. The applicant has given his explanation, copy of which, is however, not available on file. Nevertheless, the following portion of the appeal gives the full picture of the contents of the explanation:-
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing a disciplinary penalty against a railway employee long after the employee had retired.
Whether the writ petition challenges the Tribunal's finding on lack of devotion to duty.
Whether the employee's request for relief constituted misconduct or lack of devotion to duty.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
East Coast Railways
- respondent
Locon Pilot Driver
Coram
K.S. JHAVERI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court