Tribunals cannot interfere with disciplinary punishment absent procedural illegality, perversity, or shocking disproportionality.

The applicant, an Ex-Station Master/Station Superintendent at Tingrai Railway Station, was suspended on 24 October 2020 after a surprise inspection during which he was allegedly found intoxicated.

He contended that no alcohol test was conducted at the spot or during duty hours and that the subsequent medical examination was conducted after he had consumed alcohol post-suspension.

The respondents stated that the applicant was medically examined and subjected to breathalyser and blood testing within 2 hours and 40 minutes of suspension, and that the action was necessitated by his prior history of intoxication.

The applicant had previously been found intoxicated on 5 June 2019 and 20 September 2019.

Forensic reports recorded ethyl alcohol levels of 0.325 g and 0.087 g per 100 ml of blood, respectively.

He had been awarded stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect for those incidents.

Following the third incident, a departmental inquiry was initiated.

The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 22 February 2021 finding the charges proved, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed compulsory retirement by order dated 24 March 2021.

The applicant’s appeal was rejected by order dated 10 June 2021, and his revision petition was rejected on 27 October 2021.

He challenged the punishment, appellate and revisional orders before the Tribunal.

Whether the departmental inquiry and the finding that the applicant was guilty of drunkenness on duty suffered from procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or absence of supporting evidence, particularly because the alcohol testing was not conducted immediately at the station.

Whether the imposition of compulsory retirement for the third proven incident of intoxication was disproportionate and liable to be interfered with in judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the Railway Board’s Revised Policy on “Drunkenness on Duty” dated 27 November 2001, particularly Clause 6, under which alcohol levels exceeding 70 mg per 100 ml attract suspension and disciplinary proceedings for reversion from a safety-critical post, while repeated detection on three occasions warrants disciplinary proceedings irrespective of the alcohol level.

The Tribunal also considered the Railway Board’s policy dated 2 November 2012 requiring breathalyser testing and surprise/sample testing of specified railway staff.

On judicial review, it relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612; State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563; Union of India v. Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617; and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.

These authorities establish that a Tribunal does not reappreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings and may interfere only for violation of natural justice or statutory procedure, findings based on no evidence or perversity, mala fides, or punishment that shocks the conscience.

Strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental inquiries, provided the finding is supported by evidence on which a reasonable person could rely.

The Tribunal found no procedural irregularity in the inquiry.

It accepted the respondents’ position that the applicant’s breathalyser and blood tests were conducted within 2 hours and 40 minutes of his suspension and not after the relevant duty period, as alleged by him.

The Tribunal also took into account the applicant’s two earlier proven instances of intoxication and the applicable Railway policy, which expressly permits disciplinary proceedings upon repeated detection on three occasions, irrespective of the alcohol level.

Since the inquiry findings were supported by the medical and forensic material and the applicant had been afforded the prescribed departmental remedies, the Tribunal held that it could not reassess the reliability or adequacy of that evidence as an appellate forum.

In light of the repeated misconduct involving a safety-critical railway employee, compulsory retirement was not considered so disproportionate as to shock the Tribunal’s conscience.

The punishment order dated 24 March 2021, the appellate order dated 10 June 2021, and the revisional order dated 27 October 2021 were upheld.

The Original Application was dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.