Disciplinary proceedings for contesting elections without permission are not vitiated by evasion of service.

The applicant, Dharmi Meena, initially appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Railways, sought and was granted an inter-railway transfer to Kota Division, West Central Railway, in 2006, where he was subsequently promoted to Senior Clerk.

He was transferred from the office of S.S.E./P.Way/Bayana to S.S.E./Signal/Bayana via an order dated 22.07.2013.

Although relieved from his previous posting on 31.07.2013, he did not join the new office.

Later, the applicant filed his nomination on 12.11.2013 to contest the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly elections for the 90-Gangapur Assembly Constituency as a candidate of the Indian People's Green Party and participated in the elections held in November-December 2013.

No intimation or clearance was sought from his employer.

A charge-sheet dated 06.01.2014 was issued against him under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (RS(D&A) Rules-1968), and a departmental inquiry was instituted.

The inquiry was conducted ex-parte as the applicant did not respond to communications.

The Inquiry Officer (I.O.) submitted a report dated 11.06.2014, which the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) purportedly forwarded to the applicant on 19.06.2014.

Upon non-receipt of a response, the D.A. imposed the penalty of removal from service ex-parte via order dated 06.08.2014.

The applicant's subsequent appeal dated 26.12.2014 to the Appellate Authority (A.A.) was rejected by an order dated 08.03.2016.

The applicant admitted to contesting the elections while in service and residing in the Railway Colony at Quarter No. 764-B, Gangapur City.

The Respondents maintained that all communications related to the disciplinary proceedings were sent to this address, and despite being returned undelivered with remarks of "addressee not found," they were subsequently pasted on the office notice board.

The applicant was later shown to have contested the Lok Sabha Election in April 2014 as well.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet, inquiry, and the penalty orders, were vitiated due to alleged non-communication to the applicant and violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the applicant's status as a Railway employee was affected by his non-joining at the transferred place of posting, thereby exempting him from Railway Service Rules while contesting elections.

3. Whether the applicant's claims of submitting requests for voluntary retirement or permission to contest elections, which were allegedly not considered, had any bearing on the disciplinary action.

4. Whether the charge-memo dated 06.01.2014 was non-specific or lacked a list of witnesses, making the disciplinary proceedings unsustainable.

5. Whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate, or whether the actions/orders of the Respondents were driven by bias.

6. Whether the appellate order dated 08.03.2016 was non-speaking and cryptic.

The court primarily referenced and applied the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (RS(D&A) Rules-1968) for the procedural aspects of disciplinary proceedings.

Specifically, it applied Rule-3(1)(ii) and Rule-5 of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules-1966 (RS(Conduct) Rules-1966) which prohibit railway servants from being associated with political parties, taking part in politics or elections, canvassing, interfering with elections, or using their influence in connection with them.

The Railway Ministry’s decision (3) under Rule-5 further mandates political neutrality for railway servants.

The court also invoked the legal principle that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it, requiring proof of a high order of credibility.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had explicitly admitted to filing his nomination and participating in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly elections without seeking intimation or clearance from his employer, which constituted a direct violation of Rule-5 of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966.

The argument that he was not a Railway employee at the time due to non-joining at his transferred post was rejected, as he remained subject to Railway Service Rules until formally discharged, and his non-joining was attributed to his own volition.

His contention about applying for voluntary retirement or permission to contest elections was unsubstantiated, as no records or dates for such applications were provided.

Regarding procedural irregularities, the Tribunal determined that the Respondents had made diligent efforts to communicate with the applicant at his last known address via registered post AD at various stages of the disciplinary proceedings.

The fact that these communications were returned undelivered, but the same address was consistently used by the applicant for other statutory communications (RTI, election authorities, civil suit), suggested intentional evasion of service.

Communications were also pasted on the office notice board, which was deemed sufficient service given the circumstances.

Thus, the plea of non-receipt was not found credible, and the disciplinary proceedings were not vitiated.

The argument that the charge-memo was non-specific and lacked a list of witnesses was dismissed.

The charge-memo clearly specified the violation of Rule-3(1)(ii) and Rule-5 of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966, outlining the applicant's acts of contesting elections.

The disciplinary authority's decision to rely on authenticated documentary evidence (from the Returning Officer) instead of witnesses was upheld as a valid exercise of discretion, especially since the documents proved the primary misconduct and were not controverted by the applicant.

The Tribunal found the penalty of removal from service proportionate, considering the gravity of the misconduct (contesting elections while in service and later contesting a second election to Lok Sabha) and the applicant's defiant attitude, including his failure to join his transferred post despite directions.

The argument of bias was unsupported by credible evidence, placing a heavy burden on the applicant that was not met.

Finally, the appellate order was considered adequately speaking and reasoned, reflecting due application of mind by the A.A., as it considered the appeal and relevant documents.

A comparison with a Bombay High Court case was distinguished on facts, as the applicant in that case had applied for voluntary retirement and had sufficient qualifying service, unlike the present applicant.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to substantiate his case and found no reason to interfere with the actions and orders of the Respondents, including the charge-memo dated 06.01.2014, the penalty order dated 06.08.2014 by the D.A., and the appellate order dated 08.03.2016 by the A.A.

The applicant was not entitled to the other reliefs prayed for.

No order as to costs was made.