1 2025:CGHC:47212-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 799 of 2024 V. K. Tiwari S/o Shri R.N. Tiwari Aged About 52 Years R/o Qr. No. 206, Rail Vihar Colony, Main Road Deorikhurd Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495004 … Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager, Sec Railways, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (O.P.) Sec Railways, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District- Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495004 3 - Additional Senior Rly Manager Sec Railways, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgar. Pin- 495004 … Respondents For Petitioner :Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate For Respondents :Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy.S.G. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.17 11:27:47 +0530 2 DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 15.09.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner herein has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 19/10/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench whereby Original Application No. 203/00349/2018 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, finding no merit. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :- (i) The petitioner, while working as a Loco Pilot Goods, was subjected to show cause notice on 01/09/2017 (Annexure P/2) alleging that while being on duty, he has committed serious misconduct on 28/08/2017 as while working train no. N/JSLK with loco no. 27291/NKJ, he failed to observe STOP board and entered into non-OHE zone at KDTR dead end siding at RIG end and thus, he 3 contravened the provision of Rule 3.1(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter, “the Rules of 1966”) and has rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter, “the Rules of 1968”). (ii) Petitioner submitted his written reply to the show cause notice on 28/09/2017 denying the said allegation (Annexure P/3). However, the Disciplinary Authority found the reply of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory and imposed a penalty of withholding of one annual increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect by order dated 08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4). (iii) Petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein by order dated 27/02/2018 (Annexure P/6), the Appellate Authority partly modified the order of the Disciplinary Authority and reduced the period of cumulative effect from three years to two years. (iv) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred original application before 4 the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 19/10/2023 (Annexure P/1), finding no merit against which the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Dr. Veena Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that all the authorities including the Central Administrative Tribunal has failed to consider the provision contained under Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1968 which clearly provides that in order to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, before making any order imposing on the Railway servant any such penalty, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub- rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 and since the Disciplinary Authority did not conduct any departmental inquiry before imposing the punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect, the order impugned is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the 5 Disciplinary Authority is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents/Union of India, would support the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and submit that petitioner has the remedy of revision available under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1968, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- under and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner was subjected to show cause notice and after considering his representation, he was inflicted with penalty of withholding one annual increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect by order dated 08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority partly modified the order of the Disciplinary Authority and reduced cumulative effect from three years 6 to two years by its order dated 30/11/2017 (Annexure P/5), which was also confirmed by the Tribunal in the original application preferred by the petitioner by order impugned dated 19/10/2023 (Annexure P/1). 7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1968, which state as under :- “11. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. - (1) XXX (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case, it is proposed, after considering the representation, if any, made by the Railway servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension or special contribution to Provident Fund payable to the Railway servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9, before making any order imposing on the Railway servant any such penalty.” 8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority comes to the conclusion that penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect has to be imposed, firstly, 7 inquiry shall be held in view of the provisions contained under Rule 9, sub-rule (6) to (25) of the Rules of 1968 and thereafter, the order of imposing penalty has to be passed, as Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 provides the procedure that has to be followed for imposing penalties. 9. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1, has clearly held that imposition of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major penalty under Rule 5(v) of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, without conducting regular enquiry as enjoined by Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules is per seillegal and mere service of show cause notice preceding the order imposing such penalty is not enough. 10. Coming to the facts of the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, no inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner as per the procedure laid down in Rule 9, sub-rule (6) to (25) of the Rules of 1968 in view of the mandatory provision contained under Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1968 and straightway, the 1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 8 Disciplinary Authority has passed the order dated 08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4) imposing penalty of withholding of one annual increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect upon him, which is absolutely unsustainable and bad in law. After issuing the show cause notice and after considering the representation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have conducted inquiry as per sub-rule (6) to (25) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 and thereafter, would have passed the order imposing major penalty. Therefore, the order dated 08/11/2017 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing penalty of withholding of one annual increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect against the petitioner, the order dated 30/11/2017 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Appellate Authority, partly modifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority and reducing the cumulative effect from three years to two years, as well as the order dated 19/10/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, confirming the order of the Appellate 9 Authority, are hereby set aside. Petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Harneet