Sugreev Singh Gurjar vs NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY

1
OA No. 439/2021

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
…

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 439/2021

Order reserved on: 04.08.2026

Date of order: 20.08.2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)

Sugreev Singh Gurjar son of Shri Ram Prasad, aged about 42
years, resident of village Ond Gurjar, Tehsil Mahua, District Dausa
(Raj.). Presently posted as Trackman, SSE PWY, Rewari under
ADH, Alwar. Mobile-8058928154.
…APPLICANT
(By Advocate: Shri Kartar Singh)

VERSUS

1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 110001.

2. General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur. 302004.

3. Assistant Divisional Engineer, North Western Railway,
Badikui. 303313

st
4. Senior Section Engineer/P.Way (In charge) (1 ), North
Western Railway, Badikui. 303313.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Shri V.D. Sharma)


YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

2
OA No. 439/2021

ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present Original Application had been filed by the Applicant
upon being aggrieved by the Notice of Imposition of Penalty
(N.I.P.) dated 25.08.2021 issued by the in-charge Senior Section
Engineer (S.S.E.)/P.Way-I, Bandikui, North Western Railway
(N.W.R.), as the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) i.e. Respondent
No.4 – whereby a penalty of stoppage of two grade increment
without cumulative effect had been imposed upon the Applicant ;
and by the rejection of his appeal dated 06.09.2021 vide the
Letter dated 01.11.2021 Assistant Division Engineer (A.D.E.),
North Western Railway (N.W.R.), Bandikui as the Appellate
Authority (A.A.) i.e. Respondent No.3 – whereby the aforesaid
penalty imposed by the D.A. had been retained.

2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record, the relevant
matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows, briefly. The
Applicant had been appointed as Gateman in the Respondent
Department and was eventually working on duty at Gate No.LC-
193 (Middle Jatwara) on the intervening night of 13/14.08.2021.
Allegedly, he had been found sleeping while being on duty in the
night-inspection by the SeniorDivision Safety Officer (Sr.D.S.O.),
Jaipur. In consequence, the charge-Memo dated 14.08.2021 had
been issued by the D.A. to the Applicant, under the Rule-11 of the
Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 [the
RS(D&A) Rules-1968] for imposition of a minor penalty. It had
been charged thereby that the Applicant was required to be alert
during the duty hours for the safety of the train operations ; but
on the contrary he had been found sleeping on the intervening
night of 13/14.08.2021, which was a serious lapse with adverse
consequences for railway safety and security.

3. Vide his response dated 23.08.2021 to the same, the
Applicant had submitted that on 13/14.08.2021 he was assigned
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

3
OA No. 439/2021

duty from (22:00 to 06:00 Hrs). Relevantly, just before the night-
inspection by the Sr.D.S.O., the Applicant had ensured correctly
the passage of the Mandore Express (UP) at the said GateNo.LC-
193 – for which information was received by him at 01:39 Hrs.
from the Station Master of Jhar ; the Gate had been closed by
him at 01:40 Hrs. and the said train had passed the Gate No.LC-
193 safely at 01:43 Hrs. after which the said crossing had also
been opened by him. It was also submitted that when the
inspection of the Sr.D.S.O. had been conducted at 01:44 Hrs, it
was within one minute of the passage of Mandore Express (UP)via
the Gate No.LC-193 safely. At that time, the Applicant was not
asleep but was only relaxing in a reclining position, sincethere
was no information from the Station Master of Jhar regarding
passage of any other train. The Applicant had also submitted that
he had performed the duty as Gateman at Gate No.LC-193 on the
intervening night of 13/14.08.2021 despite being indisposed,
since he had been denied leave on the grounds of paucity of staff.

4. After the said response dated 23.08.2021 of the Applicant,
the D.A. had stated in the N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021that the duty of
Gateman clearly provided that he had to be alert during duty-
hours, but the Applicant was found to be lying down at the time of
inspection of the Sr.D.S.O. Thereby, the charge of negligence on
duty as brought vide the Memo dated 14.08.2021 had been held
to be proved against the Applicant. Hence, the D.A. had imposed
the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without
cumulative effect vide the said N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021.

Subsequently, the Applicant had filed an appeal against the same
on 06.09.2021 (statedly presented on 21.10.2021) to the A.D.E.,
N.W.R., Bandikui, i.e. the A.A.The said appeal had been disposed
of vide the Order dated 01.11.2021 of the A.A., while conveying
that the matter was related to safety and punctuality of the
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

4
OA No. 439/2021

trains, hence the reply was not acceptable ; and therefore the
penalty imposed by the D.A. on the employee was also retained.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant had filed the present O.A.
praying for the substantive reliefs, inter alia that the impugned
N.I.P. dated 14.08.2021 (sic) of the D.A. and the impugned Order
dated 01.11.2021 passed in appeal by the A.A. be quashed and
set aside ; and the Respondents be directed to provide the related
increments and other consequential benefits to the Applicant.

6. It was the case of the Applicant that he had been wrongly
held guilty of the charge of sleeping on duty on the intervening
night of 13/14.08.2021, since only one minute before the night-
inspection by the Sr.D.S.O., the Applicant had passed the
Mandore Express (UP) at 01:43, by properly closing the double
crossing gate and had opened the same only after it had passed.
It had also been submitted that thereafter he had not slept but
was relaxing in a reclining position, because no other train was
informed by Station Master, Jhar to be due for crossing that gate.

Moreover, it was contended that the charge had been levelled in a
vague and non-specific manner and the inquiry had not been
conducted properly, as the submissions made in response dated
23.08.2021 of the Applicantto the charge-Memo dated
14.08.2021 had not been considered at all. It had also been
submitted that the penalty of stoppage of two grade increment
was highly disproportionate even to the alleged misconduct, as in
another similar matter, another Gateman had been inflicted a
lesser penalty of stoppage of one grade increment only.

7. Vide their reply, the Respondents had admitted only to the
matters of fact on record. Per contra, the other contention of the
Applicant had been denied and disputed. It had been averred that
the Applicant was found sleeping during the inspection by the
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

5
OA No. 439/2021

Sr.D.S.O on 13/14.08.2021, although his duty bears responsibility
for safety of general public. Furthermore, it had been mentioned
that the D.A. was vested with full discriminatory powers towards
consideration of the facts/records of the matter and had imposed
the punishment in exercise thereof.

8. We have gone through the pleadings on record and also
heard the arguments by the learned Counsels of the parties.

In course of examination of the documents brought on record
through the pleadings of the parties, the perusal of the charge-
Memo dated 14.08.2021 had shown that the same had in fact
been issued in a vague manner, inter alia without specifying the
time of the night-inspection by the Sr.D.S.O. on 13/14.08.2021
when the Applicant had allegedly been found sleeping ; or by
specifying the provisions of the extant rules/guidelines/manual
etc. which had been violated by the aforesaid alleged conduct of
the Applicant.

Further, the perusal of the N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021 issued under
the Rule-6 of the RS (D&A) Rules-1968 showed that the finding
recorded therein was that the Applicant was found lying down ;
and not that had been found sleeping at the time of the night-
inspection by the Sr.D.S.O. on 13/14.08.2021 as was charged
vide the Memo dated 14.08.20212. The said finding, apart from
being different from the charge in the Memo dated 14.08.2021,
had been recorded inter alia – without basing it on any evidence
or document ; and without taking into account the grounds in the
response dated 23.08.2021 of the Applicant;and even without
adducing the relevant provisions of the extant
rules/guidelines/manuals etc. that would be violated by the stated
conduct of the Applicant. Further, the charge in the Memo dated
14.08.2021 had been essentially repeated as a self-fulfilling
finding in the enclosure to the N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021 ; and the
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

6
OA No. 439/2021

penalty of stoppage of two grade increment without cumulative
effect had been imposed in consequence thereof.

It had also emerged that the appeal dated 06.09.2021 submitted
by the Applicant to the A.A. had come to be disposed of vide the
Order dated 01.11.2021 which had in a summary manner stated
inter alia – that the appeal under Rule-18 of the RS (D&A) Rules-
1968 can be made in a period of 45 days from the date of receipt
of the N.I.P. by the delinquent railway employee ; nonetheless
the verbatim remarks of the A.A. were conveyed in summary
manner as : “The matter is related to safety and punctuality of
trains, hence reply is not acceptable. Therefore, the penalty
imposed by SSE/PW/I/BKI on employee may be kept the same.”
Again, the same had not gone into the correctness of the process
followed by the D.A. in any way ;had not taken into account the
grounds in the response dated 23.08.2021 or the appeal dated
06.09.2021 of the Applicant ; and without basing it on any
relevant provisions of the extant rules/guidelines/manuals that
stood violated by the stated conduct of the Applicant.

9. Further, the nature of the duties of Gateman had also come
up in course of the arguments before us. It had been shown that
the nature of duties of the Applicantwere classified to be of
Essentially Intermittent (E.I.) nature under the Railway Servants
(Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 extant in the
Respondent Railway department. Under those, the employment of
a railway employee is deemed to be E.I. when the daily hours of
duty would normally include (a) one period of inaction of not less
than one hour, or two such periods of no-less than half an hour
each ; and (b) various periods of inaction including the period of
inaction specified in clause (a) aggregating 50 per cent or more,
during which he is not generally called upon to display either
physical activities or sustained attention. It was argued that the
Applicant as Gateman was required to display sustained attention
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

7
OA No. 439/2021

essentially during the period of arrival and crossing of a train at
his Gate, from the time that information was received by him
from the Station Master of Jhar; the Gate had been closed by him
and till the train had passed the Gate safely. It was argued
further that it was not possible to maintain full alertness right
through the long duty hours, that too during night hours ; and the
same was not even expected of a Gateman as his work had been
classified to be of Essentially Intermittent nature.

It had been reiterated by the learned Counsel for Respondents
that the Applicant’sduty/responsibility as Gateman was for safety
of general public, for which he was required to be alert during the
entire duty-period ; but was found sleeping during his duty-
hours;(this despite the finding recorded in the statement in N.I.P.
dated 25.08.2021 that he was found lying down).

10. The learned Counsel for the Applicant had argued that the
nature of the duty of Gateman being E.I. in nature, it would
include periods where he would not display either physical activity
or sustained attention. The learned Counsel for the Applicant had
also sought to show from the copy of the Duty Watch Register of
13/14.08.2021 as submittedon record by the Applicant that in
course of his duty that night, the Applicant had ensured correctly
the passage of several trains at the said Gate No.LC-193 at short
time intervals apart – both before and after the inspection by the
Sr.D.S.O. at 01:44 Hrs. It had also been pointed out specifically
that the Applicant had ensured correctly the passage of Mandore
Express (UP) at the said Gate No.LC-193 – for which information
was received by him at 01:39 Hrs. from the Station Master of
Jhar; the Gate had been closed by him at 01:40 Hrs. and the said
train had passed the Gate No.LC-193 safely at 01:43 Hrs. Those
facts on record of the Respondent Department had not been
contested in anyway by the Respondents.

YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

8
OA No. 439/2021

11. While proceeding to examine the case at hand on merit, we
had also taken note of the averment on part of the Respondents –
that as per the extant rules, there was no provision of inquiry in a
matter pertaining to minor penalty proceedings and the
disciplinary authority was vested with full discretionary powers in
that regard ; and the decision/actions of the D.A. were in exercise
of the same. At the stage of arguments, it had thus been
submitted that it was not open for the Tribunal to interfere with
the same.

In this regard, it was a settled position that when an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was
held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are
complied with or whether the findings or conclusions are based on
some evidence. Further, when the authority accepts that evidence
and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary
authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of
punishment. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review
does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.

Nonetheless, the Court/Tribunal may interfere where the
authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or
where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidenceinstead of on some evidenceor,
where the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit
the admissible and material evidence or if the conclusion or
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

9
OA No. 439/2021

finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever arrived
at such conclusion.

12. In the present case, the perusal of the records related to
disciplinary proceedings placed before the Tribunal firstly showed
that the charge against the Applicant vide the Memo dated
14.08.2021 was made in a brief and summary manner, without
even specifying the time at which the night-inspection had been
conducted by the Sr.D.S.O. Further, the findings in the statement
in the N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021, together with the order for
imposition of penalty of stoppage of two grade increment without
cumulative effectas imposed thereby, was also shown to be made
in a vague manner – without specifying the related time-line ;
while ignoring the difference in the charge of the Applicant
sleeping during duty hours with the stated finding that he was
lying down as in the N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021 ; each without citing
the provisions of the statues/guidelines allegedly violated by the
Applicant as well as in an extremely summary and non-speaking
manner within a few sentences altogether – without accounting
for the contentions in defense submitted by the Applicant vide his
letter dated 23.08.2021. Thus, the actions and impugned Orders
of Respondents did not meet the test of natural justice.

13. Relevantly further, the charges in a charge-Memo had been
held to be proved without those being supported by additional
evidence from witnesses or other documents ; but by using the
charge-Memo itself as substantive evidence or conclusive
determination of culpability/proof of guilt of the Applicant. It is a
settled position in law that a charge-Memo is only a formal
accusation or a statement outlining the alleged misconduct. In
itself, it reflects the preliminary opinion or allegations of the
employer or department. But while it can be the basis for
initiating a departmental inquiry or disciplinary proceedings, it is
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

10
OA No. 439/2021

not an independent source of evidence and cannot be used as
substantive evidence or conclusive determination of
culpability/proof of guilt as per the charge itself. Thus also, the
actions and impugned Orders of the Respondents did not meet
the test of principles of natural justice ; in additionthose actions
and impugned Orders were found to be based on no evidence.

14. It was also shown from the Respondent Department’s own
record viz. the Duty Watch Register for the intervening night of
13/14.08.2021, copy of which had been produced on record by
the Applicant, that the Applicant had ensured the passage of
Mandore Express (UP) at the said Gate No.LC-193 – for which
information was received by him at 01:39 Hrs. from the Station
Master of Jhar ; the Gate had been closed by him at 01:40 Hrs.
and the said train had passed the Gate No.LC-193 safely at 01:43
Hrs. Such facts submitted as available on record of the
Respondent Department were not contested in anyway by them.

Also, it was not controverted by the Respondents that the nature
of work of Gateman was classified to be Essentially Intermittent ;
or that the definition of Essentially Intermittent Work had included
work of an employee where his daily duty hours inter alia included
periods of inaction, aggregating to 50% or more in a total duty
period, during which the railway employee on duty was not called
upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention.

Hence, the D.A. as well as the A.A. had clearly and erroneously
failed to controvert ; and consequently failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence submitted / presented on part
of the Applicant.

15. In light of the time line presented through the copy of the
Duty Watch Register for the intervening night of 13/14.08.2021,
it was shown that the Applicant had ensured the passage of
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

11
OA No. 439/2021

Mandore Express (UP) at the said Gate No.LC-193 – for which
information was received by him at 01:39 Hrs. from the Station
Master of Jhar ; the Gate had been closed by him at 01:40 Hrs.
and the said train had passed the Gate No.LC-193 safely at 01:43
Hrs. The night-inspection by the Sr.D.S.O. was reportedly done at
01:44 Hrs. on the night of 13/14.08.2021, i.e. within a minute
from the time when the Applicant had passed the Mandore
Express (UP) at 01:43 Hrs. at the Gate No. LC-143 and had
opened the said gate also after that. It would seem to be highly
unlikely that the Applicant could be sleeping within that short a
period. In fact the statement of finding in the N.I.P. dated
25.08.2021 records that the Applicant was found to be lying down
(and not that he was sleeping). Hence, the conclusion that the
Applicant was found sleeping at the time of night-inspection by
the Sr.D.S.O. on the intervening night of 13/14.08.2021, on the
very face of it, was so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion.

16. Therefore, in the conspectus of all of the foregoing, we
found that the impugned N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021 issued by the
D.A. as well as the impugned Letter dated 01.11.2021 passed in
appeal by the A.A. were untenable and could not be sustained.
We, therefore, quash and set aside the aforesaid impugned
penalty order/N.I.P. dated 25.08.2021 issued by the D.A. as well
as the Letter dated 01.11.2021 passed in appeal by the A.A.

17. Pursuantly, it is also directed that the consequences of the
aforesaid impugned orders shall be null and void ab initio ; and
the Applicant shall be allowed the benefits of the increments
withheld, if any, subject to his being eligible for those otherwise.
Service benefits and considerations as consequentiallyadmissible
otherwise to the Applicant shall be allowed as if the punishment of
stoppage of two grade increment without cumulative effect had
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA

12
OA No. 439/2021

never been imposed upon the Applicant – subject to the Applicant
being eligible for those.

18. Therefore, the present O.A. is allowed, with further
directions as hereinabove. No order as to costs



(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER




/ysm/
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA