A disciplinary penalty cannot rest on an attendance-register requirement introduced after the alleged misconduct.

The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer (Track Machine) with West Central Railway, was issued a minor-penalty charge sheet in Form SF-11 dated 27 November 2020.

It was alleged that, while operating Track Machine Duo-8081 on 26 November 2020, he failed to produce or keep the attendance register (Muster) at the machine during inspection, thereby violating CTE Circular No. 4 dated 22 September 2020 and Rule 3(i) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

After considering his reply dated 9 December 2020, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding one increment for one year without cumulative effect by order dated 18 December 2020.

His appeal was rejected by order dated 23 February 2021.

Whether the applicant could be penalised for not keeping the attendance register at the Track Machine on 26 November 2020 when the mandatory instruction requiring it was issued only on 29 January 2021.

Whether the alleged non-production or non-maintenance of the attendance register constituted a violation of Rule 3(i) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to apply their minds to the applicant’s reply and appeal by passing inadequately reasoned orders.

Whether the Original Application was liable to be dismissed for failure to exhaust the alternative remedy of revision.

The Tribunal applied Rule 3(i) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, which require a railway servant to maintain absolute integrity and do nothing unbecoming of a railway servant.

It also examined CTE Circular No. 4 dated 22 September 2020, finding that the Circular did not contain a mandatory requirement that the attendance register be kept at the Track Machine.

The subsequent order dated 29 January 2021, which instructed officers to keep the Muster at the machine to avoid inconvenience during inspection, could not retrospectively create a basis for disciplinary liability for conduct occurring on 26 November 2020.

The Tribunal further applied the requirement that disciplinary and appellate authorities must consider the employee’s defence and provide reasoned decisions.

The Tribunal found that, on the date of inspection, there was no mandatory instruction requiring the attendance register to be kept at the Track Machine.

That requirement was expressly introduced only on 29 January 2021, after the alleged incident.

Consequently, the applicant’s failure to keep the register at the machine could not amount to non-compliance with the earlier CTE Circular.

The Tribunal also found no sufficient correlation between the allegation and Rule 3(i) and (iii), since the alleged omission neither demonstrated lack of integrity nor conduct unbecoming of a railway servant.

Further, the Disciplinary Authority had not properly considered the applicant’s explanation, while the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal merely by stating that the penalty was “justified,” without addressing the grounds raised.

The objection regarding the unexhausted revision remedy was rejected at that stage, particularly because the matter had remained pending since 2021 and the authority relied upon by the respondents concerned dismissal at the admission stage.

The respondents were directed to restore the withheld increment to the applicant from its due date within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.