Shri Ram Kripal vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
1 MP-6484-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
MISC. PETITION No. 6484 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC030275612024
SHRI RAM KRIPAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Ram Kripal - Petitioner in person.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Additional Solicitor General for
respondents/Union of India.
Reserved on : 28.09.2026
Pronounced on :22.10.2026
ORDER
Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Gwalior,
in O.A. No. 202/00989/2018, whereby the Original Application preferred by
the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal from service dated
19.06.2017 and the consequential appellate order dated 29.11.2017 came to
be dismissed.
The petitioner, who appears in person, has submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
2 MP-6484-2024
impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and the

material available on record. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has
failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances leading to the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him and has dismissed the Original Application
without properly considering his grievance and the documents relied upon by
him.
The petitioner has submitted that he entered railway service as a casual
labourer and subsequently worked as a Gangman. According to him, he has
rendered long years of service in the Railways and has been subjected to
repeated disciplinary proceedings despite his having raised grievances
concerning his service conditions and the payment of his legitimate dues. It is
his contention that his association with the activities of the railway
employees' union and his efforts to raise the grievances of employees
resulted in adverse treatment by the railway authorities.
It is further submitted by the petitioner that disputes relating to his
service had arisen on earlier occasions, resulting in proceedings before the
Central Administrative Tribunal and this Court. The petitioner has drawn
attention to the earlier proceedings in which the order of removal from
service was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter thereafter came before
this Court in W.P. No. 5651 of 2015 which was allowed in part granting
liberty to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry after supplying copy
of some documents/letters and after affording opportunity to the petitioner to
file documents and in rebuttal thereof. According to the petitioner, the
subsequent disciplinary action has not been undertaken in a fair and proper
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
3 MP-6484-2024
manner, notwithstanding the earlier judicial directions concerning the

conduct of the inquiry and the opportunity to be afforded to him.
The petitioner has also contended that the disciplinary proceedings
culminating in the order dated 19.06.2017 were vitiated by procedural
irregularities and the material placed by him in defence was not duly
considered by the competent authorities. He submits that the respondents
have failed to appreciate the relevant circumstances and have proceeded
against him in an arbitrary manner. It is his further grievance that his
representations concerning the consequences of the earlier proceedings and
the payment of salary and other service benefits have not resulted in the
relief sought by him.
The petitioner has, therefore, urged that the learned Tribunal ought to
have examined the legality of the disciplinary action and the consequential
orders in the light of the earlier proceedings, the documents filed by him and
the grounds raised in the Original Application. According to him, the
impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material aspects of the
controversy and deserves to be set aside. He accordingly prays that the order
dated 06.04.2023 be quashed and the relief claimed in the petition be
granted.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, opposing
the petition, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional infirmity
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
4 MP-6484-2024
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner

was appointed as a casual labourer and was subsequently appointed as a
permanent Gangman on 03.08.1992. A charge-sheet dated 18.09.2010 was
issued to him alleging misuse of the letterhead of the Indian National Trade
Union Congress (INTUC), including the assertion that he had declared
himself to be its National President and had initiated proceedings before the
Labour Court in a manner alleged to have affected the reputation of the
Railways. An inquiry was conducted into the charges, and the Inquiry
Officer proceeded ex parte after the petitioner did not appear on the dates
fixed for the inquiry. On the basis of the material produced during the
inquiry, the charge was held to have been proved, and the disciplinary
authority imposed the penalty of removal from service by order dated
16.02.2012.
It is further submitted that the petitioner challenged the earlier order of
removal before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 513 of
2012. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application by order dated
23.04.2015. The said order was thereafter considered by this Court in W.P.
No. 5651 of 2015, which was allowed in part on 23.11.2015, granting liberty
to the respondents to proceed with the inquiry after supplying the requisite
documents and affording the petitioner an opportunity to produce documents
in rebuttal. The respondents submit that the subsequent proceedings were
undertaken in the context of the aforesaid judicial directions.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was placed
under suspension by order dated 14.10.2016, followed by issuance of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
5 MP-6484-2024
charge-sheet dated 22.10.2016. Upon completion of the disciplinary

proceedings, the competent authority passed the order dated 19.06.2017
dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the said order was rejected on 29.11.2017. The petitioner thereafter
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.
202/00989/2018, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated
06.04.2023.
It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate any perversity, procedural illegality or violation of the
principles of natural justice in the decision of the learned Tribunal. The
respondents maintain that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in
accordance with the applicable service rules and the competent authorities
passed the orders after considering the material available on record. It is
further submitted that the petition substantially seeks reconsideration of the
factual findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings, which is
impermissible within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for
dismissal of the petition, submitting that the petitioner has failed to establish
any ground warranting interference with the impugned order.
Heard the petitioner appearing in person and learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the material placed on record.
The principal question requiring consideration is whether the order
dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal
suffers from any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
6 MP-6484-2024
procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind that the jurisdiction
exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory
in nature. The High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over every
order passed by a tribunal and cannot interfere merely because another view
of the facts may be possible. Interference is warranted where the subordinate
tribunal has acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in it, adopted a procedure contrary to law or arrived at a conclusion
vitiated by a patent error of law or perversity.
The Supreme Court, in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)
4 SCC 181, reiterated that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not equivalent
to appellate jurisdiction and that the High Court must exercise restraint while
examining orders passed by courts and tribunals. The supervisory power is
intended to keep the subordinate adjudicatory authorities within the bounds
of their authority and is not intended to permit a rehearing of the entire
dispute on facts and law. Similarly, in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra
Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Supreme Court explained the limited
nature of the jurisdiction under Article 227 and emphasised that such power
must be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases warranting
supervisory correction.
The aforesaid principles assume particular significance in a matter
arising out of disciplinary proceedings, where the scope of judicial review is
confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
7 MP-6484-2024
compliance with the prescribed procedure and the existence of material

capable of supporting the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. The
Court is not expected to substitute its own assessment of the evidence for that
of the competent authority merely because the delinquent employee disputes
the conclusions drawn during the inquiry.
In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the hon'ble
Supreme Court held that judicial review is directed against the decision-
making process and not the decision itself. The disciplinary authority is the
primary fact-finding authority, and the Court ordinarily cannot reassess the
evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the authority. Interference
is permissible in exceptional circumstances, including where the findings are
based on no evidence or the punishment is vitiated by a legally recognised
ground warranting judicial intervention.
The hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran,
(2015) 2 SCC 610, has held that, while exercising judicial review in
disciplinary matters, the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence,
interfere with findings merely because another view is possible, or substitute
its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority. The Court may,
however, examine whether the competent authority acted within its
jurisdiction, complied with the applicable rules and principles of natural
justice, and based its conclusions on legally sustainable material.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the petitioner has raised several grievances concerning his
service history, the earlier disciplinary proceedings, the payment of salary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
8 MP-6484-2024
and other service benefits, and the manner in which the subsequent inquiry

was conducted. However, the existence of earlier litigation or the petitioner's
disagreement with the disciplinary action does not, by itself, establish that
the order subsequently passed by the disciplinary authority or the order of the
learned Tribunal is legally unsustainable.
The earlier proceedings, including W.P. No. 5651 of 2015, must be
considered in their proper context. The earlier order permitted the
respondents to proceed with the inquiry subject to the stipulated safeguards
concerning the supply of documents and the opportunity to produce material
in rebuttal. The petitioner was, therefore, required to demonstrate that the
subsequent proceedings suffered from a specific violation of those directions
or from some other legally sustainable infirmity affecting their validity.
The petitioner has reiterated his allegations of unfair treatment and
non-consideration of documents. Nevertheless, a general assertion that the
defence material was not considered, without demonstrating a material
procedural violation or an error apparent in the decision under challenge,
cannot by itself justify setting aside the order of the Tribunal in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction. The material placed before this Court does not
establish a sufficient basis for holding that the learned Tribunal acted beyond
its jurisdiction or committed a patent error warranting interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution.
The scope of the present proceedings is confined to determining
whether the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal calls for
supervisory correction. This Court cannot convert the proceedings under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31807
9 MP-6484-2024
Article 227 into a fresh departmental inquiry or undertake a complete

reassessment of the disputed factual issues merely because the petitioner
seeks a different conclusion.
Having considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner
appearing in person, the objections raised by learned counsel for the
respondents and the material available on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any jurisdictional
error, patent illegality, perversity or material procedural irregularity in the
impugned order dated 06.04.2023. No ground has been made out warranting
interference with the order passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the present miscellaneous petition, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:41:43 AM