Headline: Requiring orders from competent authority for officiating higher posts is not disobedience.

S. Rajasegaran, a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, was asked to officiate in the higher post of Loco Pilot/Shunting by an allegedly incompetent authority

He demanded orders from a competent authority, citing safety rules and the impermissibility of performing duties in a higher post without proper authorization

The 4th Respondent proceeded against him for disobedience and imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale

His appeal to the 3rd Respondent was unsuccessful, and a subsequent revision application to the 2nd Respondent resulted in the penalty being reduced to a 6-month reduction in pay

The applicant sought to quash these orders and cancel the penalty, referencing a previous, related Tribunal order and High Court judgment

Whether the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale for 6 months imposed on the Applicant for alleged disobedience was valid, given that he requested authorization from a competent authority before officiating in a higher post

Whether the orders of the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Respondents dated 23.01.2018, 15.05.2018, and 15.08.2018, respectively, should be quashed and set aside

Whether the Applicant is entitled to the cancellation of the penalty, payment of the difference in pay, and other consequential benefits

The court primarily applied Rule 103(33) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), which defines "officiating" as performing duties in a post where another holds a lien or when a competent authority appoints the railway servant to officiate in a vacant post

It also relied on Appendix VI of IREC, which states that the power to appoint a railway servant to officiate in a vacant post rests with the authority competent to make a substantive appointment to that post

The court additionally cited Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the rule of law and that only lawful orders are capable of enforcement

The Tribunal found that the issue was already settled by its prior order in OA 1564/2018, which was affirmed by the Madras High Court in WP No. 7046 of 2025

The High Court had held that the Depot Supervisor was not a competent authority to order the applicant to officiate in a higher post, as such power rests with the authority competent to make a substantive appointment under Appendix VI of IREC

The High Court emphasized that Rule 103(33) of IREC requires appointment by a competent authority for officiating arrangements

The court reiterated that requiring adherence to rules for an officiating arrangement cannot be termed unlawful or disobedient, and penalizing an applicant for insisting on legal procedure is unacceptable and contrary to the rule of law under Article 14

The original application was allowed, and the applicant was deemed entitled to consequential benefits, to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order

The orders dated 23.01.2018, 15.05.2018, and 15.08.2018 were quashed and set aside