1 CGHC010373842026 2026:CGHC:42553-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7206 of 2026 D.K. Mishra S/o Shri B.D. Mishra Aged About 64 Years Retired As Helper Ii, Under SSE/ Signal/ SECR, Bhatapara, R/o Shanti Nagar, Sant Kanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapar, Post Bhatapara, Tehsil And Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 459004. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Headquarters Office, Bilaspur, 495004 Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Sr. Divi, Signal And Telecom Engineer S.E.C. Railway Raipur Division, DRM's Office, Raipur 492004 (Appellate And Revisionary Authority) 3 - The Asstt. Divisional Signal And Tele Engineer S.E.C. Railway, Raipur Division, DRM's Office, Raipur 492004 (Disciplinary Authority) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. AV Shridhar, Advocate For Respondents /UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon’ble Mr. Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Santosh Sharma, Judge Order on Board Per : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice 30/09/2026 1. The Petitioner, in this writ petition, assails the Order dated 06th January, 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.203/00631/2018. By virtue of the impugned order under Annexure- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.10.05 10:24:33 +0530 2 P/1, the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that the judicial review with regard to punishment imposed on the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings is not permissible when due procedures have been followed in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on certain allegations, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on five charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his enquiry report on 28.4.2011, recommending transfer of the petitioner to avoid any untoward incident in future. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the report, directed for fresh enquiry and accordingly an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer with following findings:- "गः जाँच प्राधि करी क निष्कर्ष- * मेरी निष्कर्ष है निक श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा, अप अपस्थि नि! क दाख करी क्षणि%क आवेश मे) आकरी है इस !रीहै क, हैरीक! निकया हैगः। अन्याथा उसक सहैकर्मिमे3या4 क बया स स्पष्ठ है निक वेहै उसक बदा इस !रीहै क, हैरीक! है निकया है औरी अप कमे लगः औरी निष्ठ स करी! है। अ! आरीप गःल! सनिब! है! है। * मेरी निष्कर्ष है निक श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा क श्री क .ए. मे , सिसगःल अरीक्षक, गःन्डरीदाहै क सथा कमे कमे क लकरी क छ बहैस है गःया हैगः, उसक ड्यू?टीA क दाBरी शरीब प क कई डीक्टीरी रिरीपटी है हैF। मेरीप टी क भी कई प्रामे% है है। क वेल ड्यू?टीA क लकरी बहैस करी क आरीप सनिब! है! है। जिजाँसक सिलए उस छटी मेटी दाण्डी दिदाया जाँ सक! हैF। * मेरी निष्कर्ष है निक श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा परी लगःया गःया आरीप सत्यानिप! है है! हैF। यादिदा कई प्राईवेटी डीक्टीरी स मेनिडीकल रिरीपटी ल करी आ! हैF ! उसक रीलवे) डीक्टीरी स मेनिडीकल परिरीक्ष% करीवे क वेदा 3 है ड्यू?टीA मे) ल चनिहैए था, लनिक ऐस है निकया गःया औरी श्री एस.ए. बस, अभीगः अणिभीयाM!, सMक !, णिभीलई द्वारी अपस्थि ! करी दिदाया गःया जाँ निक एक गःम्भी री त्रुदिटी है। दिदाMक: 24.06.2011 क भी जाँच प्राधि करी क समे है मेरीदा मे) उपस्थि नि! क ल करी बहैस करी! हुए दाख गःया औरी प! चल क, वेहै परी च!था वेगः क कमेचरी क उपस्थि नि! रीजिजाँस्टीरी मे) हैस्!क्षरी है करी दिदाया जाँ! !था मेस्टीरी रील मे) अरीक्षक द्वारी है उपस्थि नि! दाजाँ निकया जाँ! हैF, जाँ क, समेया परी है निकया जाँ!, याहै एक गःम्भी री त्रुदिटी है। उपस्थि नि! रीजिजाँस्टीरी क अरीक्ष% है निकया जाँ रीहै हैF। * मेरी निष्कर्ष है निक श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा परी लगःया गःया आरीप सत्यानिप! है है! हैF। यादिदा कई निकस क जाँ स मेरी क, मेक, दा! है ! याहै या पसिलस क जाँच क निवेर्षया हैF, औरी शरीब प क कई डीक्टीरी परिरीक्ष% है करीवेया गःया हैF। इस क स फाईल क पजाँ क्रमेMक: 11 क पत्रु स प! चल! है, निक श्री जाँ. कU ष्% रीवे, उप स्टीश प्राबM क, गःन्डरीदाहै , क श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा क सथा परी रीMजिजाँश है सक! है, जिजाँसक करी% श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा क एक बरी पहैल भी परिरीचल निवेभीगः स बखस्!गः है चक, हैF। * मेरी निष्कर्ष है निक श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा परी लगःया गःया आरीप सत्यानिप! है है! हैF। श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा क बया इस क स फाईल क पजाँ क्रमेMक: 11 क पत्रु स सहै प्रा! ! है! है। च?निक गःण्डीरीदाहै क, मेनिहैलओं क प्रानि!परिरीक्ष क सिलए मेनिहैल है क करी% है बलया जाँ सक। वेस भी निकस 12 वेर्षWया बसिलक क हैथा छड़- छडी क निया! स पकड़ सMगः जाँमे है, जिजाँस या पल स जाँच क, हैगः औरी जाँच करी क बदा है श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा क छडी हैगः । शरीब प क कई डीक्टीरी रिरीपटी है हैF। अ! आरीप परी !रीहै गःल! सिसद्ध है! है। * उपरीक्! !थ्या क ध्या मे) रीख! हुए मेरी निष्कर्ष है निक श्री डी . क . धिमेश्री, हैल्परी-II, मेरीदा क वेहै स M!री% (निकस इकई कयालया मे)) करी दिदाया जाँया जिजाँसस उस याहै कहै क मेBक भी धिमेल क, कई उसक खिखलफा र्ष%याMत्रु करी रीहै हैF, !था सिसगःल अरीक्ष% कया मे) लगः कमेचरिरीया4 क निकस प्राकरी क कई व्यवे भी है, क्या4निक उसक वेहै रीहै स प्रात्याक दिदा कई कई निवेवेदा है! रीहैगः।" (emphasis supplied) 4 3. The Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration the observation made in the enquiry report, passed order of punishment on 16.08.11/19.09.11. By virtue of order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority directed stoppage of three annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. The petitioner being not satisfied with the order of punishment, preferred an appeal before Senior Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer, SEC/Raipur, but the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment of the Disciplinary Authority. In revision, the revisional authority reduced the punishment directing stoppage of two annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect vide Order dated 03.11.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the learned Tribunal in OA No.203/00631/2018 and vide Order dated 06.01.2026, the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal. While adjudicating the matter, the learned Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda reported in (1989) 2 SCC 177 and B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and came to a conclusion that power of interference by the Tribunal in an order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in a disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Tribunal cannot sit over the order of punishment as an appellate authority. The interference is permissible only when there is arbitrariness and perversity in the order of punishment or the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges established. Holding that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with the procedure, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the judicial review of the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is not 5 permissible and dismissed the Original Application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. When the benefit of doubt was given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, he should not have been imposed with major punishment. It is his submission that save and except the fact that the petitioner was argumentative with the colleagues and creates disturbance in the official course of business, no charge is proved against him. Thus, the vital charges, being not proved against the petitioner, he should not have been imposed with the punishment and should have been exonerated from the charges. This material aspect was lost sight of by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of the Court to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, who submitted the first enquiry report and submitted that only the petitioner was suggested to be transferred to avoid any untoward incident in future. The report of the second enquiry officer also suggests that the petitioner should be transferred from the place of posting to avoid any further controversy. However, without accepting the same, the Disciplinary Authority imposed major punishment. When the Disciplinary Authority was in disagreement with the observations of the Enquiry Officer, the reasons of such disagreement should have been mentioned in the order of punishment which is conspicuously absent therein. It is further submitted that the imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is shockingly disproportionate to the 6 charge proved. As such, the entire process of imposition of punishment is vitiated and both the order of punishment as well as the order of the learned Tribunal are liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, vehemently object the same and submits that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with the rules, providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not challenged the initiation of the second enquiry and participated with the same, which was conducted observing all the formalities in accordance with law, he should not have raised any objection with regard to the finding therein. The Enquiry Officer should not have suggested any punishment. However, the Disciplinary Authority was not in disagreement with the finding of the second enquiry report and relied upon charge proved. Further, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was subsequently modified by the revisional authority. Thus, the petitioner should not have any complaint against the order of punishment. It cannot also be said that the order of punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. Since the petitioner was argumentative and creating disturbance in the official course of business, which has been proved in the second enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority relying upon the same, imposed punishment. In addition to the above, there is no illegality and perversity in the process of imposition of punishment. He, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the Original Application. As such, the order impugned under Annexure-P/1 should not be interfered with. 6. Taking note of submission made by learned counsel for the parties and 7 on perusal of the record, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority was not in disagreement with the second enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In the first enquiry report the Enquiry Officer, giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner, suggested for his transfer. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the enquiry report, directed for a second enquiry and the second enquiry report was submitted holding the petitioner guilty of only one charge; holding that the charge of creating disturbance in the official course of business and quarreling with the colleagues has been proved. The Disciplinary Authority taking note of the same, held it to be serious one and imposed major penalty. The Disciplinary Authority was never in disagreement with the observation made in the second enquiry report. He has also discussed the observation of the second enquiry report and said that the petitioner was given benefit of doubt by the second Enquiry Officer in respect of rest of the charges. It also reveals that the imposition of the punishment was interfered by the revisional authority by reducing it to two increments with cumulative effect. Thus, we find no perversity either in the process of enquiry or in the process of imposition of punishment. When the Disciplinary Authority was not in disagreement with the observation made by the Enquiry Officer, no reason is required to be assigned by the Disciplinary Authority. We also find that the order of punishment is not shockingly disproportionate to warrant interference by this Court. Further, this Court should not interfere with the order of punishment and/or the order passed by the Tribunal, only because a second view may be possible on re- assessment of materials on record. 8 7. We perused impugned order under Annexure-P/1 meticulously and found that there is no perversity in it. The same is well discussed one relying upon the settled principle of law. Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-P/1 warrants no interference. Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Bini