OA No. 962/2011. Case: Ram Ashish Mehtar Vs The Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 962/2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.P. Dixit, Advocate and For Respondents: R.N. Choudhary, Advocate |
| Judges | A.K. Jain, Member (Ad.) and S.K. Pattnaik, Member (J) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | August 29, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
S.K. Pattnaik, Member (J), (Patna Bench)
-
The applicant has filed this OA for quashing of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.09.2010 [Annexure-A/6] and order dated 29.09.2011 [Annexure-A/8] passed by the Appellate Authority wherein the order of punishment of reduction to one grade lower from the existing grade for a period of one year with cumulative effect was up-held.
-
Applicant's case in short, runs as follows:
The applicant while working as Guard in Train No. 681 UP between Katihar to Jogbani Section, a consignment of 20 bags of Pan Masala was loaded in the Front S.L.R. by Parcel Clerk, Katihar without any guidance paper nor any information to the applicant. However, on 04.04.2007, the applicant was served with a major penalty charge-sheet on the ground that he did not take initiative for unloading of the said consignment of 20 bags of Pan Masala and caused harassment to the consignee and over carried to Jogbani. According to the applicant, it was exclusively the duty of the Station Master, Ararria Railway Station to arrange unloading of the consignment at the nominated station. Further case of the applicant is that he tried to unload the said consignment but the concerned Station Master along with party representative of 682 Dn. were not prepared with labourers to unload the consignment although the Assistant Station Master, Araria Station attended the break of 682 Dn. and dropped the government cash but intentionally did not unload the consignment and after dropping cash bags, allowed the Train 682 Dn. to leave the station Araria. The applicant submitted reply to the charge-sheet and an Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry and submitted its report on 30.09.2008, a copy of which was communicated to him on 26.03.2010 where it was reflected that the charges levelled in Article-I and II were partially proved. The applicant was surprised to receive the punishment order dated 21.09.2010, whereunder there was reduction to one grade lower from the existing grade for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The applicant preferred appeal to the Respondent No. 3 pointing out the irregularities committed by the Enquiry Officer, so also of the Presenting Officer and about the lack of appreciation of the Disciplinary Authority but the Appellate Authority passed a mechanical order up-holding and rather confirming the order of Disciplinary Authority. Further case of the applicant is that...
To continue reading
Request your trial