Union of India Vs Rakesh Kumar Maurya

Heard Mr. Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and others challenging the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.94 of 2015 under Annexure-3.

¶15

The opposite party Rakesh Kumar Maurya filed

¶16

Page 1 of 13

¶17

the aforesaid Original Application with the following prayers:-

¶18

“(i) the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order dated 22.06.2012 under Annexure A-26, order dated 28.09.2012 under Annexure A-31, order dated 29.08.2013 under Annexure A-33 and order dated 05.12.2014 under Annexure A-35 and enquiry report dated 01.05.2012 under Annexure-A/23 after declaring those as illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary;

¶19

(ii) and direct the Respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with effect from 22.06.2012 with all consequential benefits by treating the intervening period as a period spent on duty;

¶20

(iii) and be further pleased to award exemplary costs in favour of the applicant who has been forced to approach the Hon'ble Tribunal;

¶21

(iv) and pass any other order(s)/ direction(s) as deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice.”

¶22

Notice was issued to the petitioners and they filed the counter affidavit and the opposite party filed the rejoinder affidavit also.

¶23

Page 2 of 13

¶24

The learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, has been pleased to hold as follows:-

¶25

“14. In view of the law stated above, this Tribunal is not convinced to quash the charge memo, the DA and the AA order. However, on examination of the facts and law discussed above, this Tribunal is convinced that gross injustice was caused to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter; especially by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 29.08.2013 (A/33) in compliance of the order of the RRT dated 03.06.2013 (A/37). This Tribunal is also convinced/felt that the punishment of compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate/ harsh to the charges levelled against the applicant. Hence, the order of the Revisional Authority dated 29.08.2013 (A/33) and the letter dated 05.12.2014 (A/35) are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Revisional Authority/General Manager, ECoR, BBSR for suitable modification of the punishment, other than dismissal/removal/

¶26

Page 3 of 13

¶27

compulsory retirement and issuance of consequential order to the above effect. While considering and passing the consequential order as directed above, authority concerned shall also deal with the matter relating to treating the period and payment of service and financial benefits from the date of dismissal till fresh order is issued. Since considerable long time has been lapsed in the meanwhile, to avoid further delay, the concerned authority is directed to complete the entire drill within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law because of the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed by the Competent Authority. He has relied upon the decision in the case of State Bank of Patiala -Vrs.- S.K. Sharma and others reported in 1966 SCC (L&S) 739 , which held that the procedural provisions have been violated in course of proceeding and no complain is made with regard to any prejudice caused to the delinquent, the Court should not interfere with the decision of the authority

¶29

Page 4 of 13

¶30

exercising judicial review power. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no violation of principles of natural justice or any procedure lapses have been alleged by the opposite party causing prejudice to him at any stage of proceeding. Rather the learned Tribunal in the impugned order has been pleased to hold that it is not convinced to quash the charge memo, the DA and AA order. Learned counsel further argued that when all the five charges have been proved, the punishment, which has been imposed, cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate as observed by the learned Tribunal.

¶31

However, Mr. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order based on the advice under Rule 24(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was sought for from the Railway Rates Tribunal of India.

¶32

We have meticulously gone through the record and gathered that the opposite party was departmentally proceeded on the following article of charges:-

¶33

“ Article-I That the said Sri R.K. Mourya, ALP/SBP

¶34

Page 5 of 13

¶35

under Crew Controller (In-charge)/SBP, while working as such had complained to the President of India directly vide his representation dtd. 10.08.2009 without exhausting departmental remedies and prior intimation/permission of the railway administration. By the aforesaid act, he had superseded the existing provision of establishment rules, which is unbecoming of a railway servant and thereby rendered himself liable for violating Rule 3.1(iii)(ii) of Railway Service [Conduct] Rules-1966.

¶36

Article-II

¶37

That the said Sri R.K. Mourya, ALP/SBP has adopted evasive attitude and declined to reply by stating that facts should be ascertained from the President's Secretariat, although the allegations were made by him. He has indulged himself in disobedience and disrespectful reply using improper language in response to the clarification sought under letter No. C/SBP/RTI-Act/RKM/ALP/SBP/77, dtd. 20.10.2009. Thus he has violated Rule 3.1 (i) & (iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules-1966.

¶38

Page 6 of 13

¶39

Article-III

¶40

That the said Sri R.K. Mourya. ALP/SBP has refused to accept the letters dtd. 15.07.2009 & 07.12.2009 communicated to him and disobeyed the orders of railway official which is unbecoming of a railway servant and thereby rendered himself liable for violation of Rule 3.1 (iii) of Railway Service [Conduct] Rules-1966.

¶41

Article-IV

¶42

That the said Sri R.K. Mourya, ALP/SBP has remained absent unauthorisedly from 18.11 2009 to 25.11.2009 and shown lack of devotion to duty, thereby violated Rule 3.1(ii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules1966.

¶43

Article-V

¶44

That the said Sri R.K. Mourya, ALP/SBP has intentionally disobeyed the Inquiry Committee by refusing to accept inquiry letters dtd 12.11.09 & 16.11.09, thereby shown unbecoming of a railway servant and rendered himself liable for violating Rule 3.1 (iii) of Railway Service [Conduct] Rules1966."

¶45

Page 7 of 13

¶46

All the article of charges stated to have been proved in the departmental inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the inquiry report imposed a major penalty on opposite party by dismissing him from service, vide punishment order dated 22.06.2012. The opposite party challenged the said dismissal order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., ADRM/SBP. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 28.09.2012, turned down the appeal by upholding the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The opposite party then filed a revision petition before the Revisional Authority with a prayer to refer to seek advice from the Railway Rates Tribunal of India (RRTI). The RRTI by taking into consideration the entire sequence of events have not only recorded the findings that the charges recorded to be proved by the Enquiring Officer are not tenable, but also advised the Revisional Authority to alter the shockingly disproportionate punishment. It is relevant to reproduce the advice of Railway Rates Tribunal of India (RRTI):-

¶47

“The charges in Article IV was that the CO remained absent unauthorisedly from 18.11.09 to 25.11.09 and that it was alleged by him that he was spared for WOD (Waiting On Duty) but not assigned any

¶48

Page 8 of 13

¶49

duty though he was ready. In support of the said contention he relied upon the “Sign On/Off Register”, which was not produced by the administration though he filed necessary application. It is further alleged by him that no intimation was received by him to appear before the fact finding committee during the relevant period. The witnesses PW1 and PW3 who were examined by the administration to speak about the said charge IV, have not spoken in clear terms that he was legally intimated. It is also relevant to mention that no communication in writing or by post was sent to him. Even the alterations in the attendance register by the administration was made without any notice or intimation to him. The administration has not placed any valid evidence to dispute the said averments of the CO.

¶50

As far as the charges in Article III & V are concerned, the administration has not produced any valid reason to establish that the CO has refused to accept the letters. It is rather strange as to why such letters were not sent by post as the same is

¶51

Page 9 of 13

¶52

mandatory.

¶53

Regarding the charges in Article I & II are concerned no valid reasons are assigned by the CO to justify his stand. It is also necessary to mention that refusal to reveal the contents of his representations and directly sending it to Hon’ble PM and His Excellency. The President of India no doubt may be terms as misconduct. In this case the application of the CO for mutual transfer was rejected wrongly quoting the Railway Board order which indeed was supporting him and the same was communicated belatedly to him. Even for the copy of that order and other reliefs the CO was constrained to seek relief under RTI Act. In the given circumstances such misconduct mentioned in the charge No.1 & 2 committed by the CO cannot be equated with the gravity of misconduct defined in 3.1 (i) or (ii) or (iii) of The Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 that too in the absence of any alleged ulterior motive. The AA also failed to consider the entire facts involved in this case, particularly the facts relating to mitigating

¶54

Page 10 of 13

¶55

circumstances in a proper perspective before confirming the punishment of dismissal which is shockingly disproportionate.

¶56

It is also relevant to mention that both the DA and AA have not made any finding that the CO has failed to maintain absolute integrity or devotion to duty.

¶57

For the reasons stated above, it is more appropriate for the Revisionary Authority to give personal hearing to the CO, consider the mitigating circumstances and impose some lesser punishment to meet the ends of justice.”

¶58

The Railway Rates Tribunal of India (RRTI), being a Statutory Tribunal, has advised the Revisional Authority to impose a lesser penalty commensurate with the alleged misconduct of opposite party. But the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 29.08.2013, has simply reduced the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement.

¶59

The opposite party has challenged the impugned action of the petitioners before the Tribunal by filing the Original Application No. 260/00094 of 2015. The Tribunal has been pleased to allow the Original

¶60

Page 11 of 13

¶61

Application, vide impugned order dated 10.10.2023, with a direction, as reproduced in the preceeding paragraphs. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has only remitted the matter back to the Revisional Authority, i.e., General Manager, ECoR, Bhubaneswar for suitable modification of the punishment, other than dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement and also for issuance of consequential orders.

¶62

Since the impugned order is purely based on the statutory advice rendered by the Railway Rates Tribunal of India (RRTI) dated 03.06.2013, we find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶63

It is also brought to our notice that forty-five days’ time was granted by the Tribunal to comply the direction issued in the impugned order. Since that time has already lapsed and the opposite party has also approached the Tribunal by filing a Contempt Petition, we are of the considered view that the authority shall comply with the direction contained in the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No. 260/00094 of 2015 within a period of four weeks hence from

Page 12 of 13

RKM

today.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶68

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶69

( S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶70

Signature Not Verified

¶71

Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Aug-2025 11:36:44

¶72

Page 13 of 13

Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar Maurya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar Maurya

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

Kishore Vs State

Benudhar Biswal Vs State

Sanu Jani Vs State of Odisha

Mangulu Das Vs Reserve Bank of India

M/S Manappuram Home Finance Ltd, Khurda Vs the Collector and District Magistrate Khurda

Manorama Patra Vs Reserve Bank of India, Khurda