Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137335-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13925 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amar Bahadur Srivastava Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Ashok Singh Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 22.03.2024 passed in Original Application No. 237 of 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the petitioner against orders dated 26.06.2012 and 30.07.2012 , whereby the petitioner was visited with penalty and his appeal was dismissed respectively, has been dismissed. 2. The O.A. was filed with the averments that the petitioner during the period December, 2010 to March, 2011, was working as Station Master at Railway Station, Phaphamau, Allahabad. On 11.09.2011, his explanation was sought by the department which was responded by him on 03.11.2011. 3. Whereafter the petitioner was issued charge sheet on 17.05.2012, which was responded by him on 31.05.2012. After considering the reply, the disciplinary authority passed the order on 26.06.2012 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay to one stage below in the existing pay-band and grade-pay with cumulative effect. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed on 30.07.2012. 5. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty and dismissal of appeal, the O.A. was filed wherein the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the petitioner had admitted the charges, the disciplinary authority had the power to pass the order of penalty, the order passed was a reasoned order and consequently, dismissed the O.A. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the O.A. inasmuch as the respondents have failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short ‘Rules of 1968) inasmuch as no inquiry was held in the matter after issuance of charge sheet and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further submissions were made that the appellate authority also, has passed a non speaking order and on that count, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The only plea noticed hereinbefore raised by the petitioner pertains to non-compliance of provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968. 10. A perusal of the records indicates that when the petitioner was issued with the charge sheet, pertaining to forwarding his own OT Bills, wrongly/erroneously forwarding the incorrect OT claim of one Sri R.M. Yadav, ASM, in response to the said charges, he clearly admitted that he had forwarded his own OT Bills for which he was sorry and that the OT bills of Sri R.M. Yadav, which were wrongly claimed by him, were inadvertently forwarded by him. 11. Once the charges were specifically admitted by the petitioner, provisions of Rule 9 (9) (a) (iii) of the Rules of 1968 would kick in, which read as under: “(iii) Where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Railway servant in his written statement of defence, the 2 of 4 disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge, after taking such further evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 10.” 12. The said provisions deals with the action to be taken by the disciplinary authority on receipt of written statement of defence provides that where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Railway servant, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge, after taking such further evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 10. 13. Rule 10 (5) of the Rules of 1968 provides for the power of the disciplinary authority to impose penalty on the railway servant. Relevant part whereof reads as under: “(5). If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 6 should be imposed on the Railway servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Railway servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed .” 14. A perusal of the above provisions reveal that once the charges have been admitted, the disciplinary authority can straight away impose punishment on the delinquent employee, no further procedure is required to be adopted and, therefore, the action of the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted. 15. Similarly, in the appeal, the petitioner started with the admission of his guilt and sought mercy on account of his nearing retirement. The appellate authority did not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order of punishment and as such it cannot be said that the order passed by the appellate authority was non-speaking so as to require interference. 3 of 4 16. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 17. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 RK (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 4 of 4 Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad