Disciplinary findings supported by evidence warrant no judicial interference absent procedural illegality or jurisdictional error.

The applicant, a Technician-I in the North Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi, was suspended on 4 June 2022 for allegedly participating in and instigating an illegal tool-down strike on 1–2 June 2022.

A major-penalty charge-sheet was issued under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, alleging that he led or encouraged employees not to work, obstructed workshop operations, caused financial and reputational loss to the Railways, misbehaved with officers, and was identified by RPF personnel while allegedly participating in the strike.

After a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved.

The disciplinary authority relied on the inquiry report, witness statements, video material, fact-finding and RPF/DSC reports, and dismissed the applicant from service on 4 August 2023.

His appeal was rejected on 25 September 2023 and his revision petition was rejected on 9 July 2024.

Whether the departmental inquiry and consequential dismissal were vitiated by violation of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 or the principles of natural justice, including alleged bias, non-supply of documents, denial of cross-examination, and reliance on unproved material.

Whether the disciplinary authority unlawfully relied on the allegation that the applicant had submitted a fake medical certificate, although that allegation was not part of the charge-sheet.

Whether the findings of guilt were unsupported by evidence or otherwise amenable to interference in judicial review.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate or discriminatory, particularly in light of the treatment allegedly afforded to another employee involved in the same strike.

The Tribunal applied Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, governing major-penalty disciplinary inquiries, and Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966, concerning the alleged misconduct.

It also considered the principles of natural justice, including reasonable opportunity of defence, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and absence of institutional bias.

Railway Board instructions, including the instructions concerning participation in fact-finding exercises, were considered in the context of whether a preliminary fact-finding report expressed a final opinion of guilt.

On judicial review, the Tribunal relied on S.R. Tewari v. Union of India, 2013 (7) SCALE 417, for the principles that a court should review the decision-making process rather than re-appreciate departmental evidence, and that interference with punishment is justified only where the order is without jurisdiction, procedurally defective, or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant’s case from an earlier decision concerning the same tool-down strike because, in that case, the inquiry report had been cryptic and the prescribed procedure had not been followed, whereas the present inquiry report was detailed and recorded that the applicant had received several opportunities to participate and defend himself.

The Tribunal accepted the Inquiry Officer’s conclusion that the applicant repeatedly failed to cooperate and attempted to defer the inquiry through successive medical claims.

It found that the prosecution witnesses had been examined and that the findings were based on the inquiry record, including witness testimony, reports and video material.

With respect to the fake medical certificate, the Tribunal held that the allegation arose during the inquiry and was used to demonstrate alleged non-cooperation and delay; the disciplinary authority nevertheless found the applicant guilty of the charges actually framed in the charge-sheet and did not impose dismissal solely for the alleged medical irregularity.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Tribunal declined to reassess the sufficiency or credibility of the evidence.

It further held that the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders were reasoned and that no jurisdictional error, procedural infirmity, or denial of a fair opportunity had been established.

It held that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the applicable rules, that the findings of guilt were supported by material on record, and that the dismissal was not shown to be legally infirm, disproportionate, or discriminatory.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, and the disciplinary order dated 4 August 2023, appellate order dated 25 September 2023, and revisional order dated 9 July 2024 were left undisturbed.

There was no order as to costs; any interim order stood discharged and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.