Chain Pulling By Railway Employee To Help Boarding: Doesn't Constitute Misconduct To Reduce Pay : Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was employed as a Head Ticket Examiner with the South East Central Railway in Bilaspur. On 15th July 2010, while he was off-duty and travelling as a passenger with a valid PNR, he misused the Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP) twice on Train No. 2252, the KRBA-YPR Express. He pulled it to enable his female family members with luggage to board the train after its departure. This action caused an operational delay.

Therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The enquiry was conducted relying upon the two Railway Protection Force (RPF) eyewitnesses. The Disciplinary Authority concluded that the petitioner was guilty of a serious offence of detaining the train. Therefore, a penalty was imposed on him which reduced his pay by two stages in his pay band for a period of two years.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed. Then he filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed. Then he challenged the penalty by filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). However, the CAT, through its order dated 20th October 2023, also dismissed his application and upheld the punishment.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition.

It was submitted by the petitioner that on the date of the incident, the petitioner was travelling as passenger with a valid PNR and was not discharging any official duty. Therefore, his actions could not be construed as a misconduct in the discharge of his official duties. Therefore, he had not violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

It was further contended that the mere act of pulling the chain is neither a misconduct nor an offence. It was argued that it becomes punishable under Section 141 of the Railways Act, 1989, only if it is done without any reasonable and sufficient cause. It was submitted that no criminal case was registered against the petitioner under this section, indicating the absence of a finding that his actions were without cause. It was further argued that the charge-sheet was fundamentally defective and vague. Further no charges were levelled against the petitioner to allege that he had pulled the chain without any reasonable and sufficient cause.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the railway respondents that the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is limited in disciplinary matters. It was further argued that the Writ Court cannot appreciate evidence or civil appellate review over departmental finding supported by the legal evidence.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-assess the evidence in a departmental enquiry. It was emphasized that if the enquiry is conducted fairly then the adequacy or reliability of the evidence should not be scrutinized by the court. However, an exception arises when a finding of fact is based on no evidence or is perverse. In such circumstances that the Court can intervene.

It was observed by the court that the charge-sheet only alleged that the petitioner pulled the alarm chain to enable his family members to board the train. It was noted that the act of chain pulling is neither a misconduct nor an offence unless it is done without any reasonable and sufficient cause, as defined under Section 141 of the Railways Act, 1989. It was observed that the charge-sheet contained no specific allegation that the petitioner's act was without cause.

It was further observed that the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses only stated that the petitioner pulled the chain because his family had not boarded. It was noted that the witnesses did not state that they saw the family members actually boarding the train, nor did they testify that the petitioner's act was without a reasonable cause. Therefore, it was found by the court that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to record a specific finding. Further that Authority had erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the act of chain pulling itself constituted a serious offence.

The case of S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India was relied upon by the court wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that for an act to qualify as a misconduct under service law, it must have a reasonable connection with the nature of service or cast a reflection on the employee's integrity and devotion to duty.

Further, the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Venkata Raidu was relied upon wherein it was held that a charge-sheet must be specific and cannot be vague, as a vague charge deprives the delinquent employee of a fair chance to defend themselves.

It was held by the court that the charges against the petitioner were vague and unspecific, and the essential element of absence of reasonable and sufficient cause was neither alleged nor proved therefore, no misconduct was made out against him. It was concluded by the court that the Disciplinary, Appellate, Revisional Authorities, and the CAT had committed a jurisdictional error in upholding the penalty.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner employee was allowed by the court.

Case Name : Austin Hyde Vs. Union of India & Others

Case No. : WPS No. 1914 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Amrito Das, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Anmol Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Palash Tiwari, Advocate