August 25, 2026 Sl. No.2 Court No.1 s.biswas WPCT 89 of 2023 Nikhil Kumar Mondal (deceased) substituted by Ratna Mondal and others vs. Union of India and others Mr. Sk. Siddique Rahaman ... for the petitioners Mr. Kumaresh Dalal ... for the respondents/Union of India The present writ petition was preferred by the original applicant, namely, Nikhil Kumar Mondal (in short, Nikhil) challenging an order dated 20th December, 2022 passed in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 350/1659/2018. During pendency of the present writ petition, the original applicant expired and the substitution application filed thereafter was allowed by an order dated 16th January, 2016. Records would reveal that Nikhil was initially issued a charge-sheet on 21st September, 2011. The charge against him that was that while functioning as Gate Keeper on duty on 24th March, 2011 at special class manned interlocked level Crossing gate at PH-23, Km.25/16-17 in between station KSBP-TMZ of PKU-HLZ section, he failed to observe the provision of GWR and GR 16.06 & SR 2 16.06.04, failed to provide safety chain across the round, did not keep red hand lamp ready with him to show to the incoming train crew nor made any attempt to stop the train, failed to protect the LC gate against road traffic as well as to exhibit danger signal to the approaching train, which led to dashing of Goods Train No. NIIB38 hauled by electric multiple Loco WAG5A 23039/23130, against road vehicles (Bus No. WB-11A-4892 & Mini Truck No. WB 29A- 2241) at Special Class manned interlocked LC Gate No. P11-23 at Km.25/16-17 between KSBP and TMZ stations of Haldia – Panskura section of Kharagpur Division of South Eastern Railway at 19:10 hours of 24.03.2011. After incidence, he abandoned the work spot. An enquiry officer was appointed and he filed his enquiry report on 7th January, 2012. The said enquiry report was served upon Nikhil on 24th January, 2012, to which he replied on 8th February, 2012. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 28th June, 2012 dismissing him from railway service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, Nikhil preferred a statutory appeal which was disposed of by an order dated 11th June, 2015. By the said order, considering the length of service and taking a humanitarian approach, the punishment from ‘dismissal from Railway Service’ to ‘Removal from Railway Service with 2/3rd of Pension and Gratuity w.e.f. 29.06.2012’, purely as a gesture of mercy. By the said order, the Appellate Authority also granted him a liberty to 3 prefer revision petition before the Revising Authority i.e. PCE/GRC/SER within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. Nikhil, however, filed a revision petition dated 28th July, 2015 before the General Manager, South Eastern Railway. As the same was not considered, Nikhil preferred an OA being OA 1191/2016, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 23rd February, 2017 directing the concerned respondent to consider and dispose of the revision petition. Subsequent thereto, Nikhil was communicated a memo dated 27th July, 2018 stating inter alia that he had not submitted the revision petition before the Revising Authority as specified in the order passed by the Appellate Authority and that he may submit the settlement papers. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred OA 1659/2018, which has been dismissed by the order impugned in the present writ petition. Mr. Rahaman, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners argues that in course of the enquiry the relevant documents, as sought for by Nikhil, were not supplied to him and that as such the impugned proceeding suffers from blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority also disposed of the statutory appeal by a cryptic order. In spite of the direction of the learned Tribunal to dispose of the revision petition within a time frame, the respondents did not comply with such direction. Such arguments, as advanced, were 4 glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants the interference of this Court. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order passed by the disciplinary authority, Mr. Dalal, learned advocate appearing for the Union of India and its functionaries submits that the charge levelled against Nikhil was very serious inasmuch as his negligence led to dashing of Goods Train against road vehicles on 24th March, 2011. A regular enquiry was conducted, in which Nikhil participated and subsequent thereto, a final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 28th June, 2012. The Appellate Authority, in appeal, took a lenient view and reduced the punishment from ‘Dismissal from Railway Service’ to ‘Removal from Railway Service with 2/3rd of Pension and Gratuity w.e.f. 29.06.2012, purely as a gesture of mercy’. He further submits that Nikhil did not file revision petition before the competent authority as specified in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. By a letter dated 27th March, 2017, he was asked to prefer the revision petition before PCE/GRC/SER. Such fact was again brought to the notice of Nikhil by issuing a memo dated 23rd February, 2017, which was impugned in the earlier OA. 5 We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as the appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct had been arrived at. It is not a case that Nikhil was not granted appropriate opportunity of hearing or that the finding of misconduct is not based on any evidence. No violation of any statutory rules has been urged. The findings of the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority also do not suffer from perversity and the reduced penalty is also not disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues refused to exercise discretion in favour of Nikhil and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. The writ petition being WPCT 89 of 2023 is, accordingly, dismissed. As regards the settlement dues, Mr. Dalal, upon instruction, has placed before this Court a memo dated 22nd August, 2026. Let the same be kept on record. A copy of the same has been handed over to Mr. Rahaman in Court today. As per the liberty granted by the learned Tribunal, the applicants/petitioners would be free to approach the competent authority for grant of settlement dues of Nikhil. 6 There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)