Judicial review cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence where findings are supported by some evidence.

The applicant, a Loco Pilot (Goods) with South East Central Railway, was proceeded against under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1966, for allegedly passing through Tilda Station on 16 August 2014 in Train No. N/Box 339 and overshooting the Down Intermediate Block Home (IBH) signal while it was at danger.

After the applicant denied the charge, a departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer held the charge proved in his report dated 25 December 2014.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service by order dated 2/14 January 2015.

On appeal, the punishment was modified to reversion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900, while the intervening period was treated as “dies non”.

The applicant challenged the charge-sheet and punishment orders, contending that the Accident Manual, 2014 excluded passing of an IBS signal from the category of “Signal Passing at Danger”.

Whether the departmental inquiry and the findings of guilt were vitiated because the alleged passing of the IBH/IBS signal did not constitute “Signal Passing at Danger” under the Accident Manual, 2014?

Whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedural rules and principles of natural justice, and whether the findings were supported by evidence?

Whether the punishment, as modified by the Appellate Authority, was disproportionate to the misconduct?

The Tribunal applied Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1966, governing major-penalty disciplinary proceedings.

Relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, it held that judicial review in disciplinary matters concerns the legality and fairness of the decision-making process, including compliance with natural justice and whether the findings are supported by some evidence; the Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court.

Under Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84, administrative action may be interfered with on grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety, consideration of irrelevant factors, or irrationality.

The Tribunal also relied on Union of India v. K.G. Soni, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1568, for the principle that punishment should not be substituted by the court unless the administrative decision is illogical, procedurally improper, or shocking to the conscience.

The Tribunal found that the material witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity to defend himself, and that the Inquiry Officer had relied on evidence in the inquiry record rather than extraneous material.

It further noted that the Disciplinary Authority had considered the inquiry findings and that the record indicated that the applicant had accepted the charge during the inquiry.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Tribunal declined to reassess the evidentiary adequacy or substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authorities.

It also held that the Appellate Authority had already taken a lenient view by reducing removal to reversion, and that the resulting punishment was commensurate with the gravity of overshooting a danger signal.

The applicant’s contention regarding the Accident Manual did not persuade the Tribunal to invalidate the disciplinary proceedings.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.