This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing an original application regarding a railway employee’s punishment of withholding increment. The court held that the charge was proved, the punishment was not major, and no interference was warranted.
The writ petition was dismissed without costs. No order as to costs.
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.
1
[3445]
H'GHcou Rr .?T I+B8III=^8: l-'::-"^- ^
(SPeciai'oiiginalJ urisdiction;
ruESDAyrHEr.h.JSX',,1i'#.Rt-i?'#o*t
PRESENT
THEHoNOURABLEsRl JusrlgEABHINAND KUMARSHAvlLl rHEHoNouRABLE sMT.,0U?'"= TIR,MALADEVI EADA
O:8388 0F2021 wRlTPETITIONN
Between:
X$ i'*1"J.:flB[ kal Diviston ...PETITIONER CL-niratRailwaY'Gunta '+"."o3ilLi'tffi"J,fl'l)8li;l'3i"i3-li'[]s3t;3'i'
Petitionunder Article 226 of the--Co":lit{l:lof lndia prayingthat in the circumstancesstat"d in"ti"'-ritiiu"itfiteoffrerewitti,itre Hign court may. be pleased toissueun 'oo..ffi#''t' "'0"i"'t':::t'3hlli,l'J i[: :..[?T:U; rly|ul ;"sx'fi: ?{.;iili? i:: Xl,::l{"ifi"r;id; i;";;me arong with Lr.No.G/T.22,GTLdated 'o;'0il0.1o ;"-ittegat' aroitrary and viorative of Article14 arisi-ng out.oiiptop"'appreciation of the and 16 ofthe Constitutio;;iiJ; "^d facts andcircumstances lf th" """ in the interestof iustice
Counselfor the Petitioner:SRI'A' PAVAN Kyy-|RREP SRIA' RAGHU KUMAR ;;;;;iror the Responaenis : snr " tk t1iliFi[;5ft % ^ oePuw.soltclroRGENERALoF INDIA
The Gourtmadethe following:ORDER
i I,
? i ,jI
THE H.1.,1''O'E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAIT SHAVILI
AND
THE I{ON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE.I EADA t PetitioaNo .8388 of 2o2L
ORDER: ().. t , Lron,bte Sri Justtce Abhiaand Kumar Shauiti)
Aggri,:r : ri by the order dated 13.11.2O21), p,assed in O.A.No. I l4!) ,,f 2015 by the Central Administr.atir,.r: .lr.ibunal, Hyderabac I_: , nch, Hyderabad (for short, .the Tri[,u:ral,), the present \t[,'r i ),:tition is filed.
AKS,J& ETD'J 2 w? 8388-2021
respondentskeated that the petitioner's departurefrom stationwithout Prior notice asmisconductand initiated him.After conductinga disciplinaryproceedings against detailedenquiry and for the proven misconductinthe enquiry,thedisciplinary authorityhasimposeda 1' -t ^-."'l in.rernent fora period punishmentof withholding of annual incremt of twoyears wde proceedings'dated 04'06'2014' Later' the petitionerhas preferredan appeai to the appellate authority and theappellateauthority was pleasedto partly allow the appealuideproceedings'dated 07 09'2015 and modihed the punishmentof \rithholding of annual incrementfor a period of twoyears' to \rithholdingof annual increment for a period of 18months with effect from 04'06'2014'without havrng any adverseeffect on future pay and seniority''Aggrievedby the modifiedpunishment order by the appellate authority' has approachedthe Tribunalby {iling the Petitioner was pleasedto 2O15and the Tribunal o.i..,No.rt+gof di"missthe O'A' uide order' dated13'11'2O2O'without appreciatingany of the contentionsraised' by the petitioner' Therefore,aPproprlate orders be passedin the Writ Petition by settingaside the order' dated 13'11'2020 passed in hmentorder,dated O.A.No.1149 of 2O15;the modifiedpunis
3
4IiS .I & ETD..] .p 8388 2021
t i I I I
\
07.O9.ito ) : Passed by the appellate authoritr ard also the plrnishrrLc r I order, dated 04.06.2lO74 1rass.ect b), the disciplrn t -r :ruthority and further direct the r:s;pondents to releasr: t -r, increments, which were u,ithhr:lc b-v the respon de n t I is a measure of punishment.
AKS,J &ETD,J \w_a3aa-2o2t
imposed apunishmentfor the proven misconductinthe enquiry, moreover,thepunishment is not amajor punishment. Oncompletion of18 months' the withheld increment shouldbe released to the petitioner' We are not abletounderstandastohowthepetitionerisaggrievedby the punishmentthoughthe same was imposed without cumulativeeffect' Therefore,this Court is not inclinedto interfere withthe orderspassedby the Tribunal'
7 As a sequel,miscellaneousapplications pending if any'
shall standclosed.
SD/.P. 33i#I'.fHE3ll1H"^A ,TTRUECOPYI' SECTIONOFFICER
To, Advoca 1. 2. OneOneCC CC to to SRl.SRIGADIPA. RAGHU RAVEKUMAR, EN KUMAR DY o['u"?o*.ENERALoF INDIA toPucl 3.Two CD Copies BM GJP CH{L
;
, I I i
HtGH COtjrti:T
DATED:1 1t}?.t2}2s
ORDER
1i/a-' i;i T4 7t
\ a. )
c '(
3 J 2E lili (l 11 2
a
: /),- . . /,, ,- r..<br>:-.------'
WP.No.83BB c,f 2021
DISMISSING'TI{E WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS
ockl 2tlo{lz9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal’s order dismissing the O.A. in a case involving withholding of increment as punishment.
Whether the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
X
Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Tirumala Devi Eada
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
