Discretionary minor penalty upheld; Courts do not interfere with quantum of punishment unless arbitrary.

The applicant, Pawan Kumar Suman, a Deputy Chief Signal Telecommunication Engineer, was suspended on February 28, 2012, in connection with issues arising during the commissioning of Route Relay Interlocking (RRI) at Patna Junction and Panel Interlocking (PI) alterations at Rajendra Nagar Station.

His suspension was revoked on March 21, 2012.

Subsequently, a major penalty charge memorandum dated May 22, 2012, was issued, alleging delay in indoor wiring work at Patna East (Rajendra Nagar) and failure to ensure the quality of outdoor work at Patna Junction, violating Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

The applicant submitted a detailed reply, denying the allegations and explaining his role in the complex, simultaneous works.

The Disciplinary Authority, without a detailed inquiry or personal hearing, found the applicant not solely responsible but, as part of the team, imposed a minor penalty of withholding the next increment for two years without cumulative effect, effective December 6, 2013.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputation were identically worded, contrary to Railway Board’s Master Circular No. 67 dated October 20, 2002.

The Appellate Authority referred the matter to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which concurred with the findings but also observed that the applicant could not be solely responsible for the delay, given the curtailed Non-Interlocking period and lack of evidence.

Despite these observations, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and affirmed the punishment.

The applicant sought relief from the Tribunal, arguing discrimination as other officers named in the joint enquiry report were not disciplined, and that the punishment adversely affected his promotion to Selection Grade.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the imposed penalty were justified given the Disciplinary Authority's finding that the applicant was not solely responsible and lacked sufficient professional exposure.

2. Whether the applicant was subjected to discrimination, as other officers involved in the alleged irregularities were not disciplined.

3. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally flawed due to the identical wording of the Articles of Charge and the Statement of Imputation, contrary to Railway Board’s Master Circular No. 67.

4. Whether the denial of a personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority violated principles of natural justice.

5. Whether the imposed minor penalty of withholding increment affected the applicant’s promotional prospects, and if such interference with promotion is permissible.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for the applicant's grievance.

Disciplinary proceedings were carried out under Rule 4 and Rule 9(iv) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

The allegations of misconduct were based on Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

Procedural requirements for charges were considered in light of Railway Board’s Master Circular No. 67 dated October 20, 2002, which distinguishes between concise Articles of Charge and detailed Statements of Imputation.

The power of judicial review concerning the quantum of punishment was guided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in *B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors.* [(1995) 6 SCC 749], which limited interference to cases of perverse findings, lack of evidence, incompetent authority, shocking conscience, or ignored relevant factors.

The Tribunal noted that the Disciplinary Authority, considering the applicant's explanation, took a lenient view by imposing a minor penalty despite finding that the applicant, as the officer in charge, was responsible for supervision and timely completion of work.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputation were similarly worded, but found that they still provided a clear and structured understanding of the allegations, implying no significant procedural defect.

Regarding the quantum of punishment, the court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under *B. C. Chaturvedi*, stating that interference is only warranted if the finding is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or shocks the conscience of the court.

In this case, the applicant failed to prove a violation of prescribed rules or illegality warranting interference, especially since a minor penalty was imposed after considering his explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination plea, stating the applicant, as the officer in charge, held greater responsibility than other officials.

The disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules, and the minor penalty imposed was proportionate to the lapses, with no procedural violations or breaches of natural justice demonstrated by the applicant.

The plea of discrimination was also rejected due to the applicant's higher responsibility as the officer in charge.