O.A. No. 4251/2013. Case: Ashes Kiran Prasad Vs The Union of India through The Secretary, Railway Board and Others. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 4251/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Ayushi Kiran, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri V.S.R. Krishna and Shri Rajinder Khatter, Advocates |
| Judges | G. George Paracken, Member (J) and P.K. Basu, Member (A) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 21 |
| Judgement Date | May 16, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
G. George Paracken, Member (J), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
1. The Applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the orders passed against him in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
2. The brief facts of the case are: The Respondents-Railway Board, vide Memorandum No. E(O)I-2008/PU-2/NW-14 dated 07.08.2008, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against which enquiry was held as set out in the Articles of Charges were as under:-
Article of Charge-I:
The said Shri A.K. Prasad misused his official position for dispatch of 3 (three) and 4 (four) poly bundles of wooden parts by 4055 Dn. Ex LMG to NJP on 12.07.2005 and 14.07.2005 respectively and then dispatch of total 7 poly bundles of wooden parts by 3245 Dn. Ex NJP to PNBE which left NJP on 06.08.2005 without any booking and valid documents (RUD-1, 16).
For transportation of these wooden parts, Shri Prasad instructed Shri T. Barua, CCI/HQ/MLG, from time to time. Total 3 poly bundles of wooden parts marked as 'From CCO MLG to SS NJP (RUD-1) were loaded in the Rear SLR No. NR 97703/A(F/C) of 4055 DN by Shri S.N. Dey, Hd CC/T/LMG at LMG (RUD-2) on 12.07.2005. The said wooden parts were neither booked nor accompanied by any valid documents from the concerned Forest Department, but were dispatched ex LMG to NJP (RUD-1, 7). The said consignments were unloaded at NJP under the supervision of Shri Barua as per instructions of Shri A.K. Prasad and kept inside the parcel cage by the on-duty TRC Staff (RUD-1).
Again 4 poly bundles of wooden parts marked as 'From CCO/MLG to SS/NJP' (RUD-1) were loaded in the Rear SLR No. NR 97702/A(F/C) of 4055 DN by Shri T.K. Paul, Hd/CCT/LMG on 14.07.05 (RUD-3). The said consignment was loaded from P.F. No. 2 of LMG Station (RUD-3) and unloaded at NJP Station under the supervision of Shri Barua as per instructions of the said Shri Prasad (RUD-1, 8). This consignment was also not booked and did not have valid documents from the Forest Department accompanying it. It was also shifted inside the parcel cage where the previous 3 bundles of wooden parts were kept. These two consignments of wooden parts were unloaded at NJP by parcel clerk on duty, on 12.07.05 and 14.07.05 respectively (RUD-10 to 14) and were found without any Railway Mark, booking authority and Transit permit from the forest department (RUD-1). Moreover, LMG and NJP Stations are not nominated stations for dealing with wood (RUD-19).
The said Shri A.K. Prasad instructed Shri T. Barua, CCI/HQ/MLG to make all the wooden parts into furniture by the carpenter at NJP. Shri Prasad again instructed Shri Barua on 15.07.2005 through ACM/CP/MLG to complete the wooden work immediately and to dispatch them to NDLS by Rajdhani Express. The said Shri Prasad repeated the same instructions to Shri Barua on 01.08.05 and 02.08.05. Shri Barua communicated these instructions to the local officers and Area Railway Manager (ARM)/NJP (RUD-1).
On 05.08.05, as soon as the carpenter arrived and started his work at NJP Station, Shri H.D. Bhattacharya, IFP/SIB/NJP, came there and witnessed the unloaded wooden parts on the NJP platform which he confessed in his statement (RUD-21).
On 06.08.05, the said Shri Prasad instructed Shri Barua to dispatch these wooden parts by Train No. 2505 DN.EX NJP to NDLS but, due to difficulty in loading, these could not be dispatched. Again, the said Shri Prasad instructed Shri Barua to dispatch these materials by Train No. 3245 DN from NJP. Accordingly, all the 7 bundles of wooden parts were loaded in Front SLR No. EC-02713 (F/C) of 3245 DN and dispatched from NJP to PNBE on 06.08.05 (RUD-1,9,15).
This material, i.e., all the 7 poly bundles of wooden parts, was unloaded at PNBE by Shri Rabindra Prasad. Sr. Parcel Clerk/PNBE, in the presence of Shri R.D. Pathak, Pass Guard/Danapur, and kept in the Parcel Godown/PNBE (RUD-4, 16, 20). Measurement particulars of the wooden parts were submitted by the CS/P/PNBE on 03.02.2006 (RUD-17). The said material was burnt in a fire incident at Parcel Godown, Patna on 04.04.06 (RUD-18).
Article of Charge-2:
The said Shri A.K. Prasad engaged and mis-utilized the following Railway Staff for loading and transportation of the 3 (three) and 4 (four) poly bundles of wooden parts by Train No. 4055 DN Ex LMG to NJP on 12.07.05 & 14.07.05 respectively
1. Shri T. Barua, CCI/HQ/MLG, was specifically engaged for transportation of the unbooked wooden consignment (RUD-1).
2. Shri S.N. Dey, HCC/T/LMG, loaded (3) three poly bundles of wooden parts in Rear SLR No. 97703/A(F/C) of Train No. 4055 DN at LMG on 12.07.05 with the remarks 'Do not touch this room only Railway Material' (RUD-5), got it sealed and dispatched.
3. Shri T.K. Paul, HD CC/T/LMG, loaded the unbooked (4) four poly bundles of wooden parts in Rear SLR No. NR-99702/A(F&C) of Train No. 4055 DN at LMG on 14.07.05 with the remarks 'Do not touch this room' (RUD-6), & dispatched it with the seal of NJP/4.
In both the cases, the consignments were uploaded at NJP under the supervision of Shri Barua. CCI/HQ/MLG and kept inside the parcel cage situated on P.F. No. 2 & 3 at NJP Station (RUD-1). Both stations i.e. LMG & NJP were restricted for booking of Wood (RUD-19). On 06.08.2005, as per orders of the CCO/MLG, the total 7 poly bundles of wooden parts were loaded in the Front SLR No. EC 02713 (F/C) by 3245 DN at NJP without any booking authority and valid documents from the Forest Department under the supervision of Shri Barua, CCI/HQ/MLG, and dispatched on same day (RUD-1). The same consignments were then unloaded at PNBE by the Parcel clerk on duty on 07.08.05 and kept in the parcel Godown (RUD-4, 16).
Article of Charge-3:
The said Shri A.K. Prasad deprived Railway of freight earnings by dispatching 7 poly bundles of wooden parts by 4055 DN, ex LMG to NJP in two lots of 3 & 4 poly bundles on 12.07.05 and 14.07.05 respectively; then, these 7 poly bundles were dispatched in Front SLR by 3245 DN. Ex NJP to PNBE on 06.08.05 without any booking authority and valid documents from the concerned Forest Department. Thus, total 7 poly bundles of wooden parts were got transported by the Railway system from LMG to PNBE as unbooked without paying any Railway dues. This was done for the personal gain of the Shri Prasad then CCO/NFR/MLG.
3. As the Applicant denied the aforesaid charges, an enquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.08.2011. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were that none of the charges have been proved. The conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer with regard to each of the charges were as under:-
Charge-I
Conclusions: Thus the charge that CO had instructed many junior officials telephonically was seen to be not exactly a correct representation of the reality on ground.
Only one person - Shri Tapan Barua, CCI/HQ/Maligaon had claimed that CO had given him instructions from time to time. This claim has however not supported by any evidence in a direct manner or could be corroborated otherwise.
XXX XXX XXX
Conclusions: It has been established that there is no direct evidence of any involvement of CO for the movement of the bundles from LMG to NJP.
Shri Tapan Barua, CCI/HQ/MLG, the main witness from PO side, had however accused CO of forcing Shri Barua despatch the wood bundles from NJP to Patna.
The testimony of Shri Barua to Vigilance and at the inquiry has quite a few inconsistencies and is such that the entire statement cannot be accepted as totally trustworthy and accurate. CO has claimed that the evidences presented at the inquiry establish beyond any doubt that the bundles of wood that was loaded at Lumding were not the one seized at Patna and hence he could not be accused of smuggling furniture quality wood to Patna.
IO feels that the statements of Shri Barua putting all blame on CO cannot be relied upon without at least one other confirmatory evidence from a source independent of Shri Barua.
XXX XXX XXX
Conclusions: This charge of CO misusing his official position to transport 7 bundles of wood from Lumding to New Jalpaiguri and then to Patna has thus not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
CO might certainly enjoy a high status in his own organization but no tangible evidence was available to convince the inquiry that his writ ran all over the NFR as well as ECR. The score of front line staff who were in no way under his control, had participated in illegal actions knowing full well the possible consequences. All this was supposedly on the basis of their being told by someone that the wood bundles they were smuggling out without booking, belonged to CCO/MLG.
Even Shri Barua who was the only staff belonging to claims department (which was headed by CO), had no convincing answer during his testimony as to why he must follow illegal orders given by the CO over phone.
This behaviour of Shri Barua indicated a strong possibility that he had indulged in this illegal movement for reasons other than alleged telephonic messages from CO. May be, linkages possibly established over a long period, was at the root of so many staff participating in this fraudulent movement at the say so by Shri Barua.
Charge-II
Conclusions: This charge of CO misusing his official position to transport 7 bundles of wood from Lumding to New Jalpaiguri and then to Patna has not itself been established and hence to raise the charge of CO engaging and misusing the score of Railway Staff for such act of his could not be acceptable.
Therefore, this part of the charge was not established beyond all reasonable doubt.
XXX XXX XXX
Conclusions: This charge that CO had used his official standing to avoid booking his 7 bundles of wood as parcel because of his apprehensions that the violation of the existing ban on movement of forest product could have been detected later because of the paper trail...
To continue reading
Request your trial