VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

874 DECISION - 473
(473)
(A) Misconduct — in quasi-judicial functions
(B) Misconduct — of disciplinary authority
Disciplinary authority can be proceeded against in
disciplinary action for misconduct of imposing a
lenient penalty.
S. Venkatesan vs. Union of India,
1999(2) SLJ CAT MAD 492
The applicant, who was an Assistant Engineer, was working
in Open Line Organisation, Madras, when the front pair of wheels of
Trivendrum-Madras Mail derailed on 19-4-95. The Inter-departmental
Committee which was formed to go into the cause of the derailment
submitted its report to the Divisional Railway Manager, Madras
Division on 6-6-95 holding that C. Ramamurthy, Permanent Way
Inspector Gr.I, Avadi and Traction Loco Controller were responsible
for the derailment. As the derailment occurred at Avadi, which came
under the jurisdiction of the applicant, the applicant was called upon
to take appropriate disciplinary action against C.Ramamurthy,
Permanent way Inspector G-I. After considering the inquiry report
submitted to the Divisional Railway Manager, Madras by the Interdepartmental
Inquiry Committee, the applicant issued a minor penalty
charge memo to the said C.Ramamurthy on 4-9-95. On 19-9-95,
Ramamurthy submitted his explanation and after considering the
reply, the applicant by an order dated 29-9-95 imposed the minor
penalty of withholding the delinquent officer’s annual increment for a
period of six months (non-recurring). This was brought to the notice
of the General Manager, Southern Railway and a charge memo was
issued to the applicant on 12-4-96 which is challenged in this
application. The charge reads as under:
“Shri S. Venkatesan, Sr. DEN/Co-Ord/MAS while working
as Sr./DEN/Central/MAS, in his capacity of disciplinary authority in a
DAR case pertaining to the derailment of Train No. 6320 Trivandrum-