Facts
The Petitioner, a Superintendent in Southern Railways, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings following the misappropriation of over Rs.1 Crore by another employee, Anil Kumar Meena.
Source reference: p.2The Petitioner was charged with sharing his User ID and password, which facilitated fraudulent claims for child education and housing allowances.
Source reference: p.2Following an inquiry where the charges were proved, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on 07.07.2021.
Source reference: p.1, 3After his appeal was rejected and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application (O.A.No.310/00444/2022) on 02.12.2024, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging the CAT order and the removal.
Source reference: p.1-3Issues
1. Whether the order of removal was passed by an incompetent authority lacking the requisite jurisdiction.
Source reference: p.3, para. 42. Whether the departmental proceedings complied with the principles of natural justice and if the punishment was proportionate to the proved misconduct.
Source reference: p.5-6, para. 9Law Applied
Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which stipulates that penalties of compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal must be imposed by the Appointing Authority or an equivalent/higher authority.
Source reference: p.4, para. 7Railway Board Circular RBE No.10/2011 (Schedule-II) and the Model Schedule of Powers 2018, which empower an officer of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) to act as the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority for Non-Gazetted posts.
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 7Proportionality Test regarding administrative actions and the standard of judicial review for adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Source reference: p.5-6Reasoning
The Petitioner contended that the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (Sr. DPO) was not competent to order removal; however, the Court observed that the Sr. DPO holds the rank of Junior Administrative Grade and, under the relevant Schedules of Power, is the Petitioner's Appointing Authority.
Source reference: p.3, 5, para. 8Regarding procedural fairness, the Court found that the Petitioner was served a Charge Memorandum, afforded an inquiry, and allowed to submit explanations, satisfying the requirements of natural justice.
Source reference: p.5-6, para. 9On the merits, the Court noted that the proof of misappropriating public funds amounting to Rs.1 Crore through unauthorized credential sharing constituted grave misconduct.
Source reference: p.6Applying the rule of proportionality, the Court reasoned that such a significant financial loss to the exchequer justified the extreme penalty of removal.
Source reference: p.6, para. 9Holding
The Court answered the first issue in the negative, holding that the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer was the competent authority.
On the second issue, the Court held that the proceedings were fair and the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the charges.
Source reference: p.6, para. 9The High Court found no infirmity in the CAT’s order and dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.
Source reference: p.6Original Court PDF
N.DHAKSHINAMURTHYvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in