Union of India Vs N.Mani

The Union of India and others have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 99 of 2017 in allowing the Original Application and setting aside the proceeding instituted against the opposite party N. Mani vide charge memorandum dated 21.08.2015 and also the punishment order dated 28.01.2016 and the subsequent order of the appellate and revisional authority dated 09.05.2016

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

and 07.09.2017 respectively.

¶16

The opposite party filed Original Application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’ in short) bearing O.A. No. 99 of 2017 under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act with a prayer to for declare the initiation of the proceeding vide charge sheet under Annexure-3, the punishment order vide Annexure-8, the appellate order confirming the punishment and revisional order dated 07.09.2017 of the Chief Personnel Officer, Bhubaneswar as without jurisdiction and for quashing the same.

¶17

From the factual scenario, it appears that the opposite party, who was working as Office Superintendent/Control Office under Sr. DOM(M), Waltair, was allotted with Type-II Quarter bearing No. 592/1 with effect from 23.12.2005. A surprise door to door joint verification by the nominated Committee was conducted on 27.06.2015, 29.06.2015 and 03.07.2015 at the Rail Area of Visakhapatnam and it was found that the allotted quarter of the opposite party was under unauthorized occupation and it has been sub-let. Basing on such fact finding report of the Committee, the Senior Divisional Engineer (HQ) vide his letter dated 08.07.2015 recommended for taking action against

¶18

Page 2 of 8

¶19

the erring Railway employees including the opposite party and thereafter vide letter dated 06.08.2015, the Chairman, Optg. Sub-Qrs. Committee -cumAsst. Optns. Manager (G), East-Coast Railway, Waltair instructed the Divisional Personnel Officer, East-Coast Railway for cancellation of the allotment of quarters, initiation of eviction proceeding and for recovery of the penal rent from the erring Railway employees including the opposite party and consequently, the opposite party was issued with major penalty as per Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (in short, ‘Rules, 1968’) vide memorandum dated 21.08.2015 by the Senior Divisional Optns. Manager, East-Coast Railways, Waltair with a direction to submit written statement of defence. The opposite party was also duly served with article of charges, statement of imputations, list of documents and witnesses to be relied upon. After receipt of such documents including articles of charges, the opposite party submitted her explanation in which she denied all the charges. Considering the explanation of the opposite party, the disciplinary authority in exercise of the powers under Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1968, appointed Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the opposite party. The Inquiry Officer

¶20

Page 3 of 8

¶21

conducted enquiry and the Senior Divisional Optns. Manager (M) vide letter dated 11.01.2016 issued show cause notice enclosing the enquiry report requiring the opposite party to submit her reply/representation and the opposite party submitted a detailed reply to the show cause stating that the Inquiry Officer did not consider the facts precipitated during course of enquiry and mechanically held that the charges are proved. It is further stated that the Inquiry Officer instead of basing his conclusion on material evidence and facts arrived at, forcibly came to hold that the charges seem to be proved, which clearly shows that the Inquiry Officer has acted in a preconceived manner to conclude the charges as proved when he (Inquiry Officer) himself has agreed that in the absence of recorded evidence, the Committee should have produced the photo/videos as a proof of subletting. It is further stated that the major penalty charge sheet was issued to the opposite party without verifying the prima facie evidence and records, which shows that the Inquiry Officer in a predetermined mind vindictively in order to punish the opposite party has issued such charge sheet and it violates Rule 9 of the Rules, 1968. It is further stated that the Inquiry Officer by ignoring the statement of the opposite

¶22

Page 4 of 8

¶23

party that the lady, who was there, was her aunt who had come for treatment at Appolo Hospital and further stated that all along she was residing there and she produced the railway ID card and Aadhar card, which clearly shows that the residential address is the Railway allotted quarter.

¶24

Pursuant to the notice issued by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners being the respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are based on available materials on record justifying the conclusion reached by those authorities and the punishment imposed on the opposite party is commensurate with the charge levelled against her, which needs no interference. It is further stated that the impugned orders were passed by the competent authority by observing the principles of natural justice and there are no procedural irregularities and there is no flaw in initiating the enquiry proceeding against the opposite party and the departmental enquiry was just and fair and the departmental enquiry against the opposite party was held as just, fair and transparent and in due obedience to the procedure enumerated under the Rules, 1968.

¶25

Page 5 of 8

¶26

The opposite party filed rejoinder affidavit wherein she has relied upon some instructions issued by the Railways relating to the procedure of departmental action, which was initiated on acquisition or subletting of Government accommodation by the Railway employees. In the instruction dated 19.06.1998 referring to Rule 15-A of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966, it is stated that the disciplinary proceeding on account of subletting can be initiated only after the allotment is cancelled and after the allegation of subletting is proved. In the said circular, it is further stated that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings prior to or without establishing subletting of the quarter, without giving opportunity to rebut the allegations against him, as required under the principle of natural justice and arriving at the conclusion on the basis of enquiry conducted by the committee of officials behind the back of all other, that the accommodation has been sub-letted etc. are contrary to Rules.

¶27

Learned Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the relevant records and documents, came to hold that so far as Rule 15-A of Rules, 1966 is concerned, the same deals with “sub-letting of Government

¶28

Page 6 of 8

¶29

accommodation by Railway employees and departmental action against” wherein it is clearly stated that no Government servant shall sub-let, lease or otherwise allow occupation by any other person of Government accommodation which has been allotted to him. The learned Tribunal has also referred to the instruction dated 19.06.1998 of the Railways on this issue and held that as soon as the charge of sub-letting is established, the allotment of quarter shall be cancelled and the disciplinary authority shall initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the Railway servant concerned. The learned Tribunal further held that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings prior to establishing subletting of quarter, without giving opportunity to rebut the allegations against her as required under principle of natural justice and arriving at the conclusion on the basis of enquiry conducted by the committee of officials behind the back of all other, that the accommodation has been sub-let etc. is contrary to the Rules and the own circular of the Railways. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to pass the impugned order.

¶30

Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned Central Government Counsel after arguing for some time fairly submitted that the learned Tribunal is right in holding that due

¶31

Page 7 of 8

¶32

procedure, which has been formulated in the instruction relating to initiation of proceeding in case of allegation of sub-letting of Government accommodation by the Railway employees, has not been followed properly in this case.

¶33

After going through the documents, which are annexed to the writ petition and more particularly, the explanation submitted by the opposite party and the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry and the enquiry report, we are also of the view that there is no flaw in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, which requires our interference.

¶34

In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to initiate a proceeding against the opposite party afresh by following procedure, if they are so advised.

¶35

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶36

Judge

¶37

(Savitri Ratho)

¶38

Judge

¶39

PKSahoo

¶40

Signature Not Verified