Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010199712026 2026:GAU-AS:13883-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5088/2026 SANJAY MAZUMDAR SON OF LATE DHARANI MAZUMDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NAKUL NO. 1, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781354 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, N. F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI- 11 2:GENERAL MANAGER N. F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11 3:DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER RANGIA KAMRUP PIN-781354 4:ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER RANGIA KAMRUP PIN-781354 5:SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER RANGIA DISTRICT KAMRUP 78135 Page No.# 2/6 For the petitioner : Mr. D.K. Nath, Advocate Ms. M. Das, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. B. Chakravarty, C.G.C. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 18-09-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. D.K. Nath, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents/Railways. By this present petition, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Tribunal’), Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No.040/316/2023, whereby the sentence imposed upon the applicant has been reduced but, that too, was not to his satisfaction. In fact, the petitioner has challenged the entire departmental proceedings, the major departmental penalty as also all subsequent orders, which had been upheld or modified. A charge-memo was issued against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Railways Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘1968 Rules’) framing three charges, namely, (i) Page No.# 3/6 misbehaving with two lady passengers travelling in the train, of which the petitioner was the Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector-II; (ii) he charged Rs.1,000/- from those lady passengers without issuing any ticket or acknowledgement and (iii) in a drunken stupor, he misbehaved and physically assaulted one RPF staff who had come to verify the complaint made by the lady passengers. It was at that time that it was discovered that the petitioner was drunk and as such, he was detained by the RPF. The records reveal that during the departmental proceeding, a grievance was raised by the petitioner that necessary/relevant documents were not supplied to him. When two RPF witnesses were examined later, the petitioner had questioned the same on the ground that they were not present at the time of the alleged incident. An effort has been made by Mr. D.K. Nath to also point out the discrepancies in the statements made by the two witnesses with respect to his accepting Rs.1,000/- without issuing any ticket or acknowledgement against that money. He says so on the strength of the statement of one of the witnesses, who stated that he was informed that a ticket worth Rs.660/- was given against Rs.1,000/- paid to the petitioner but the balance amount was not returned to the said lady passengers. The charge of misbehaviour was not found to be proved by the inquiry officer on account of lack of evidence; but the charges relating to not supplying the ticket or acknowledgement against Rs.1,000/- and his drunken misbehaviour with the RPF staff in the train were found to be proved. The petitioner appears to have made a detailed representation in Page No.# 4/6 his defence, but the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of reduction of his salary by two grades (from level-6 to level-3), for five years with cumulative effect. In the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, the sentence was reduced and the period of reduction of salary was changed to 3 years from 5 years. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the Tribunal vide O.A. No.040/316/2023. The Tribunal concluded by directing that the pay of the petitioner be fixed at level-5 and that all consequential benefits at level-5 be given to him. The Tribunal has also directed that the salary of the petitioner be redrawn accordingly and any excess amount recovered from him be refunded. The primary ground of the petitioner remaining dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal is regarding the procedural irregularities during the departmental proceedings; lack of evidence; non- examination of star witnesses, namely, the two lady passengers and reliance on the documents which were not listed in the charge-memo as also the violation of some of the 1968 Rules. According to the petitioner, the entire proceeding against him should have been done away with, but the Tribunal merely chose to reduce the punishment and that also only to the extent of fixing the salary of the petitioner at level-5 rather than at level-3. As opposed to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned Central Government Counsel has submitted Page No.# 5/6 that the departmental enquiry had been conducted very fairly and it makes no difference with respect to the finding of the guilt or the charge against the petitioner to be proved in the absence of the statements by the lady passengers. During the inquiry/examination, the witnesses recounted that the petitioner had taken Rs.1000/- from the lady passengers and he was found to be totally drunk. Precisely for that reason, the petitioner was detained by the RPF. Mr. Chakravarty has further submitted that the entire proceedings would not reflect any bias or any pre-determination, as has been alleged by the petitioner, for the absence of the two lady passengers at the disciplinary proceedings as witnesses, the charge No.1 was rightly found to have been not proved. However, the drunken behaviour of the petitioner commended for a stricter view and, consequently, a stricter punishment. The disciplinary authority as also the Tribunal have only lightly dealt with the case of the petitioner so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the submission of the learned Central Government Counsel that charge Nos. II and III, relating to not issuing ticket or any acknowledgement receipt against the money received by the petitioner from the passengers and his drunken behaviour were proved. We are at a loss to understand as to how the Tribunal reduced the already light punishment given to the petitioner. Be that as it may, since the order passed by the Tribunal has not been questioned by the respondent, we refrain from expressing any view Page No.# 6/6 on that issue and leave it that. However, finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same but without any order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant