Pribin C P vs SOUTHERN RAILWAY
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00086/2023
th
Thursday, this the 29 day of October, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)
1. Pribin C.P., aged 31 years, S/o, C.K. Paul,
Track Maintainer-III, SSE/P.Way/Alwaye,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway,
Residing at Chakkalackal House, Kallettinkara P.O.,
Thazhakadu Post, Thrissur.
2. Amal K. Shagy, aged 30 years, S/o.K.S. Shagy,
Track Maintainer-III, SSE/P.Way/Alleppey,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway,
Residing at Karippayil House, Arthunkal P.O.,
Cherthala.
3. Ajith T.P., aged 35 years, S/o. Peethambaran T.N.,
Track Maintainer-IV, SSE/P.Way/Alleppey,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway,
Residing at Thoppumveli, S.N. Puram P.O.,
Cherthala.
4. Pratheesh B.D., aged 34 years, S/o. B.O. Devassykutty,
Track Maintainer-IV, SSE/P.Way/Trichur,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway,
Residing at Brahmakulam House, Velathur P.O.,
Trichur.
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
2
5. R. Mahesh, aged 39 years, S/o. K.Ramakrishna Pillai,
Track Maintainer-IV, SSE/P.Way/Alleppey,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway,
Residing at Kunnelveliyil House, CMC 22,
Cherthala P.O.
6. T.S. Ajayan, aged 54 years, S/o. Sreedharan,
Track Maintainer-I, SSE/P.Way/Alleppey,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway,
Residing at Thottupurathuchira, Kalavankodam P.O.,
Cherthala.
7. Bijeesh P., aged 37 years, S/o. Purushothaman P.
Working as Assistant Permanent Way Welder,
SSE/PWI/Alleppey, Trivandrum Division,
Southern Railway, Residing at Railway Quarters 8-B,
Cherthala.
8. Soni C.S., aged 36 years, S/o.Soman
Track Maintainer-IV, SSE/P.Way/Alleppey,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway,
Residing at Cherukannattu, Varanam P.O.,
Cherthala, Alappuzha. ..... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Martin G. Thottan)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India represented by Secretary,
Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The General Manager, Southern Railway,
Park Town P.O., Chennai-600003.
3. The Senior DEN/Co-ordination,
Divisional Office, Personnel Branch,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division,
Trivandrum-695014
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
3
4. The DEN/S, Divisional Office,
Personnel Branch, Southern Railway,
Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum-695014.
5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Southern Railway, Kollam-691013 ..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sreejith N., ACGSC)
This Original Application having been heard on 12.10.2026, the
Tribunal on 29.10.2026 delivered the following:
O R D E R
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –
The applicants who are Track Maintainers under the Southern
Railway of Trivandrum Division challenges Annexures A3 series of
penalty advice, Annexures A5 series of orders by which the individual
appeals filed by them challenging penalty advices were rejected and
Annexures A7 series of orders by which the revisions filed by them were
rejected by the revisional authority.
2. The applicants joined the service under the respondents as Track
Maintainers. While so, they were served with Annexures A1 series of
identical charge memos dated 27.7.2018 alleging that each of the
applicants interfered and obstructed the introduction of night patrolling
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
4
with support men, and later obstructed night patrolmen from performing
their duty without support person, and thereby were instrumental in
disruption of train operation between SRTL – MAKM (Cherthalla –
Mararikkulam). The applicants denied the charges and submitted
Annexures A2 series of replies, contending that they had not caused any
obstruction to the night patrol duty to be performed. They denied the
charges and submitted their explanation. It was not stated in Annexure A1
series of memos, the basis of the memo of charges and no document was
referred or cited in Annexures A1 memos. It also did not state what
prompted the respondents to issue memo of charges. Some of the
applicants are office bearers of recognized Union and according to them
memo of charges were issued to them to quell the anger brewing up
among some track maintainers against deputing the contract labouers for
night patrolling duty. The applicants had not obstructed night patrolling
duty as alleged.
3. The disciplinary authority rejected their replies by Annexures A3
series of orders. According to the applicant it was rejected despite the
disputed question of fact involved and without conducting any inquiry
and in a biased manner, imposed punishment of withholding of one
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
5
annual increment for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect by
Annexures A3 series of orders. Annexures A3 series of orders were issued
without considering the fact that it involved highly disputed question of
facts. Annexures A3 series of punishment order was highly arbitrary and
without any application of mind and the same was not in accordance with
Rule 10(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
4. Aggrieved by the above orders applicants submitted appeals to the
th
4 respondent as provided under the Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968. Annexures A4 series were the copies of the appeals.
All the appeals were rejected by Annexures A5 series orders. According
to the applicants, the appellate orders were not in conformity with Rule
22 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. In the
appellate order the appellate authority referred to a report said to have
been given by SSE/PW/STRL, copies of which were not furnished to the
applicants.
5. Applicants submitted revisions as provided under the Rules. The
copies of the revision petitions are produced as Annexures A6 series. All
the revisions were rejected by Annexure A7 series orders. According to
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
6
the applicants, the revisional authority also did not apply the mind while
passing the order and were not in conformity with Rule 25 of the Railway
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
6. Regarding the incident involved a criminal case was registered at
the instance of the Railway Protection Force under Section 145(b), 146,
154 and 174(c) of the Railways Act. The case was registered as CC No.
79 of 2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The
learned Magistrate after trial acquitted all the accused by Annexure A8
order. In view of Annexure A8 judgment, the applicants contend that the
findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed in appeal and revision
were without of any consequence. Accordingly, invoking Rule 25(A) of
the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 reviews were
filed as Annexure A9 series.
7. Contending that the decisions arrived at by the authorities were
absolutely irregular, without proper application of mind and without
giving an effective opportunity to the applicants, the OA has been filed,
seeking the following reliefs:
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
7
i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A3 to
“
A3(g), A5 to A5(g) and Annexure A7 to A7(g) and to quash the same
with all consequential benefits.
ii) Direct the respondents to disburse the increment withheld from
the applicants in pursuant to the impugned orders.
iii) Direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate
orders on Annexure A9 to A9(g) review petitions submitted by the
applicants under Rule 25 A of The Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968.
”
8. Respondents appeared and filed a reply statement denying the
various allegations. It was stated that the applicants were Track
Maintainers in Alleppey section. During monsoon season, in order to
detect the damages to the track, night patrolling was introduced in the
tracks between Cherthalla and Mararikkulam stations. Various beats were
assigned to the track maintainers for patrolling. Due to scarcity of work
force, additional men from agency were also arranged as support to the
night patrolling staff. On 18.7.2018 the applicants became instrumental in
disruption of rail traffic by obstruction of night patrolling duty. On that
day, the Railway employees who were required to attend the duty did not
report claiming themselves to be sick. They obstructed the contract
labourers engaged by the agency. The letter advised to the Senior
Divisional Engineer by Senior Section Engineer, Cherthalla who was
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
8
available at station clearly mentions the names of the applicants who were
responsible for obstructing Railway works and caused detention of trains.
It was alleged that the applicants at about 17.45 hours agitated and
interfered and obstructed with the arrangement of support men from the
agency for the night patrolling duty. A copy of the report of the supervisor
dated 19.7.2018 was produced as Annexure R1.
9. The interruption caused by the applicants led to non-availability of
sufficient staff for night patrolling on 18.7.2018. This led to disruption of
train services and in-convenience to thousands of passengers. Hence, the
respondents were compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
the applicants.
10. The impugned orders were absolutely proper and made in
accordance with service Rules applicable to the applicants. Review
Applications filed under Rule 25 A of Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968 was under consideration.
11. It was alleged that the applicants had organized protest and were
active participants thereof. Their actions had serious repercussions for
safety of trains and travelling passengers. In Annexure A1, a statement of
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
9
allegations was also enclosed which contained the detailed description of
the misconduct on the part of the applicants on clear point wise basis, on
which the charges were framed. The applicants had also given their
explanations. The contention that no inquiry was conducted by the
disciplinary authority was wrong and based on a wrong understanding of
the service Rules. A minor penalty proceeding was initiated and
consequently under Rule 11 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1968, there was no provision for conducting any inquiry. Grounds
for conducting an inquiry was also not made out. Applicants have failed to
give any satisfactory reason to drop the charges. The disciplinary authority
had objectively considered their explanations and arrived at proper
conclusions. Hence, it was contended that the prayers sought in the
Original Application were not sustainable and were liable to be rejected.
12. Heard both sides and examined the records.
13. The applicant assailed the impugned orders on three different
specific grounds. It was contended that the issue involved as revealed
from Annexures A1 series of charge sheet was a disputed question of fact
which ought to have been established by necessary materials on record.
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
10
There was no material to establish the allegations. It was secondly
contended that being a disputed question of fact, the authority was bound
to conduct an inquiry as contemplated under Rule 11(1)(b) of Part IV of
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Hence, the penalty
imposed on the applicant, though even a minor penalty, is not legally
sustainable. It was thirdly contended that the inquiry was initiated
pursuant to a report given by the authority which is now produced along
with the reply statement as Annexure R1. The copy of the said document
which formed the basis of allegations in Annexures A1 series was not
furnished to the applicants and to that extent the disciplinary proceeding
without furnishing the relevant document was bad and hence, liable to be
interfered with.
14. Definitely, the nature of allegation is revealed from Annexures A1
series. The statement of imputation of charges enclosed along with
Annexures A1 series indicates that on 18.7.2018 it was decided by the
administration to provide round the clock stationary watchman at EAK 31
bridge and other river bridges mentioned therein. It was stated that it was
further decided to extend the monsoon patrolling from Mararikkulam
towards Alleppey. Due to emergent situation, it was decided to take out
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
11
the departmental support persons from the beats of Cherthalla and
Mararikkulam to man other location. Four people from agency were
arranged to support the night patrolling men. However, on 18.7.2018 at
about 17.45 hours, each of the applicant interfered and obstructed the
introduction of night patrolling with support men. Later they obstructed
night patrolmen from performing their duty without support person. Thus,
they interrupted Railway working.
15. Evidently, the allegation is based on facts. The basic question is
whether the applicants have committed the said act of obstructing the
night patrolling with support men. There is also no dispute that when
disputed questions of fact arise, it would be in the interest of justice to
conduct a factual inquiry notwithstanding the fact that minor penalty
proceedings were initiated. The authority is also competent to order such
an inquiry under the Rules.
16. In this regard to decide whether any disputed question of fact was
involved, it is essential to peruse the identical replies given by the
applicants, evidenced by Annexures A2 series of replies. In Annexures A2
series of replies, common contentions have been set up by all except by
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
12
two persons, one T.S. Ajayan and Bijeesh P. All have specifically stated in
their replies that on 18.7.2018 their Union had a mass contact programme
and they had participated in that meeting. They reached Cherthalla at
about 17.30 hours. At that time, there was some arguments going on
between SSE/PWAY/SRTL and a group of activists. The applicant
enquired about this and it was known that they were protesting about the
move to send contract labourers for night patrolling. The reply given by
them also indicate that there were protest against the engaging of contract
employees. The presence of the applicants at the place of occurrence, and
the happening of an untoward incident there is not disputed. However, it is
specifically stated therein that each of the applicant, who was engaged in
different beats had assembled at their place of incident during the relevant
time and some issues had arisen thereon. Evidently, in the replies itself
they have factually admitted the main aspect of the allegation. In the
above circumstances, in the nature of the replies given there was no scope
for any further inquiry.
17. In the light of the above finding that the applicants had virtually admitted
the substantial part of the incident including the presence at the spot at the
relevant time and that certain untoward incident had happened though they have
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
13
denied their role in it, it goes a long way in establishing the guilt of the
applicants. Hence, the contention that there is no material to establish their
guilt/misconduct is also not sustainable.
18. It is true that the genesis of the disciplinary proceeding was Annexure R1
issued by the concerned officer at the station. It is also an admitted fact that
Annexure R1 was not enclosed with the statement of imputations. Definitely the
applicants did not have the advantage of perusing it also. However, though the
document ought to have been referred to or copy given to the applicants, the
nature of the reply clearly indicates that in the light of the admissions made
therein, non-service of Annexure R1 has not in any manner prejudiced the
applicants. In other words, in the light of the admissions made on the substantial
facts which formed the basis of the allegations, the non-supply of Annexure R1
is immaterial.
19. Having arrived at the above conclusion we find no reason to interfere with
the penalty imposed which appears to be reasonable in the nature of the
allegations raised against them. The Original Application fails and is
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(V. RAMA MATHEW) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
“SA”
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
14
Original Application No. 180/00301/2025
APPLICANTS’ ANNEXURES
Annexure A1: True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
respondent to the first applicant
Annexure A1(a): True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
respondent to the second applicant
Annexure A1(b): True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
respondent to the third applicant
Annexure A1(c): True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
respondent to the fourth applicant
Annexure A1(d): True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
respondent to the fifth applicant
Annexure A1(e): True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
respondent to the sixth applicant
Annexure A1(f): True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
respondent to the seventh applicant
Annexure A1(g): True copy the memo of charges bearing No.
D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth
th
respondent to the 8 applicant.
Annexure A2: True copy of the objection dated 06.08.18 submitted
nd
by the 2 applicant
Annexure A2(a): True copy of the objection dated 06.08.18 submitted
rd
by the 3 applicant
Annexure A2(b): True copy of the objection dated 07.08.18 submitted
th
by the 5 applicant
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
15
Annexure A2(c): True copy of the objection dated 07.08.18 submitted
th
by the 6 applicant
Annexure A2(d): True copy of the objection dated nill submitted by the
th
7 applicant
Annexure A2(e): True copy of the objection dated 06.08.18 submitted
th
by the 8 applicant.
Annexure A3: True copy of Penalty Advice bearing
th
No.D5/ALLP/P.C.P dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5
respondent to the first applicant.
Annexure A3(a): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing
No.D5/ALLP/A.K.S dated 21.01.2019 issued by the
th
5 respondent to the second applicant.
Annexure A3(b): Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/A.T.P dated
th rd
21.01.2019 issued by the 5 respondent to the 3
applicant.
Annexure A3(c): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing
th
No.D5/ALLP/P,B,D dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5
th
respondent to the 4 applicant.
Annexure A3(d): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing
th
No.D5/ALLP/M.R. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5
th
respondent to the 5 applicant.
Annexure A3(e): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing
No.D5/ALLP/A.T.S. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the
th th
5 respondent to the 6 applicant
Annexure A3(f): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing
th
No.D5/ALLP/B.P. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5
th
respondent to the 7 applicant.
Annexure A3(G): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing
No.D5/ALLP/S.C.S. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the
th th
5 respondent to the 8 applicant.
Annexure A4: True copy of the appeal dated 02.02.19 submitted by
nd
the 2 applicant.
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
16
Annexure A4(a): True copy of the appeal dated 06.02.19 submitted by
rd
the 3 applicant.
th
Annexure A4(b) : True copy of the appeal dated nil submitted by the 4
applicant.
Annexure A4(c) : True copy of the appeal dated 28.02.19 submitted by
th
the 5 applicant.
Annexure A4(d) : True copy of the appeal dated 04.07.19 submitted by
th
the 6 applicant.
th
Annexure A4(e) : True copy of the appeal dated nil submitted by the 7
applicant.
Annexure A4(f) : True copy of the appeal dated 02.02.19 submitted by
th
the 8 applicant.
Annexure A5: True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/26 Engg dated
th
29.06.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the first
applicant.
Annexure A5(a): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/24 Engg dated
th
29.06.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the second
applicant.
Annexure A5(b) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/22 Engg dated
th
29.06.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the third
applicant.
Annexure A5(c): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/99 Engg dated
th th
30.09.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the 4
applicant.
Annexure A5(d) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/93 Engg dated
th th
09.10.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the 5
applicant.
Annexure A5(e) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/92 Engg dated
th th
09.10.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the 6
applicant.
Annexure A5(f): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/91 Engg dated
th th
11.10.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the 7
applicant.
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
17
Annexure A5(g): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/23 Engg dated
th th
29.06.2019 issued by the 4 respondent to the 8
applicant.
Annexure A6: True copy of the revision petition dated 07.09.19
nd
submitted by the 2 applicant.
Annexure A6(a): True copy of the revision petition dated 05.09.19
rd
submitted by the 3 applicant.
Annexure A6(b) : True copy of the revision petition dated 05.09.19
th
submitted by the 4 applicant.
Annexure A6(c) : True copy of the revision petition dated 18.11.19
th
submitted by the 5 applicant.
Annexure A6(d) : True copy of the revision petition dated 22.11.19
th
submitted by the 6 applicant.
Annexure A6(e) : True copy of the revision petition dated 22.11.2019
th
submitted by the 7 applicant.
Annexure A6(f) : True copy of the revision petition dated 05.09.19
th
submitted by the 8 applicant.
Annexure A7: True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/26 Engg dated
rd
nil issued by the 3 respondent to the first applicant.
Annexure A7(a): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/24 Engg dated
th
01.02.2020 issued by the 4 respondent to the second
applicant.
Annexure A7(b) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/22 Engg dated
th
20.01.20 issued by the 4 respondent to the third
applicant.
Annexure A7(c): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/99 Engg dated
th th
20.01.20 issued by the 4 respondent to the 4
applicant
Annexure A7(d) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/93 Engg dated
th th
20.01.20 issued by the 4 respondent to the 5
applicant
Annexure A7(e) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/92 Engg dated
th th
14.01.20 issued by the 4 respondent to the 6
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
18
applicant.
Annexure A7(f): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/91 Engg dated
th th
20.01.20 issued by the 4 respondent to the 7
applicant.
Annexure A7(g): True copy of the Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/23 Engg
th th
dated 14.01.20 issued by the 4 respondent to the 8
applicant
Annexure A8: True copy of the judgment dated 26.11.2021 in CC
No.79 of 2019 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alappuzha.
Annexure A9: True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
to the dated 26.01.22 submitted by the first applicant.
Annexure A9(a) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
to the dated 27.01.22 submitted by the second
applicant.
Annexure A9(b): True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
to the dated 27.01.22 submitted by the third applicant.
Annexure A9(c) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
th
to the dated 18.02.22 submitted by the 4 applicant.
Annexure A9(d) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
th
to the dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 5 applicant.
Annexure A9(e) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
th
dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 6 applicant.
Annexure A9(f) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
th
dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 7 applicant.
Annexure A9(g) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A)
th
dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 8 applicant.
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES
Annexure R1: True copy of the report dated 19.7.2018.
Annexure R2: True copy of the letter dated 6.6.2024.
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'
19
Annexure R3: True copy of the Railway Board letter No.
E9D&A)81AE6-6 dated 30.8.1984.
Annexure R4: True copy of the Appendix II of Indian Railway
Establishment Code, Volume-I.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.10.29 16:03:44+05'30'