Judgment:
ORDER
Ghulam Mohammed, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.9.2008 passed in O.A. No. 285 of 2006 on the file of the Cnetral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by virtue of which, the Tribunal allowed the O.A.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Reviewing Authority, by virtue of which Reviewing Authority modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority from reduction of pay to Rs. 8,300/-from basic pay of Rs. 8,650/- in scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000 to 'reduction of pay to Rs. 8,475/- from basic pay of Rs. 8,650/- in the same scale till the date of retirement of the employee i.e. 31.8.2005 with cumulative effect for retirement benefits'.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working as P.W.I/Grade-III/C/SC in construction wing and he was transferred by an order dated 27.10.1992. He handed over the charge of the jurisdiction to his successor Sri K.R. Venkoba Rao, PWI/C/SNF. As the material was held at various stores depots within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad SNF, it could not be handed over immediately. Subsequently three thefts of material have taken place stored in various places on different dates viz., 14.10.1993, 21.2.1994 and 19.3.1994. It is stated that it is only after ten years after the transfer of the applicant-respondent a charge memo under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D&A;) Rules, 1968 was issued in standard Form No. V by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Con-I) S.C. Railway, Secunderabad in his order dated 22.6.2004. The applicant-respondent submitted his explanation to the charge memo denying the charges. Subsequently, Inquiry Officer was appointed and he enquired into the matter and submitted his report. The Inquiry Officer found that the first charge is partly proved and the second charge is not proved. The disciplinary authority vide its order dated 22.3.2005 submitted copy of the enquiry report and directed the applicant to submit his explanation to the enquiry report. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his explanation on 4.4.2005 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority vide memo dated 2.5.2005 awarded the punishment of reduction of pay to Rs. 8,300/-from basic pay Rs. 8,650/- in time scale of Rs. 5,500/-9000/- with immediate effect till his retirement i.e., 31.8.2005 with cumulative effect for retirement benefits. On appeal, the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 6.7.2005 modified the order of the disciplinary authority as under:
Reduction of pay to Rs. 8,475/- from basic pay of Rs. 8,650/- in same scale till the date of retirement of the employee i.e., 31.8.2005 with cumulative effect for retirement benefits.
4. The Tribunal considering the entire aspects held that the appellate authority has failed to follow the relevant Rule 22 while disposing of the appeal preferred by the applicant-respondent and modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority under Rule 25 without taking into consideration the aspects mentioned in Rule 22 and set aside the impugned memorandum dated 6.7.2005 and 2.5.2005 issued by the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority and directed the respondents to recalculate the pay of the applicant-respondent and refund the amount already deducted, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment and the Tribunal would normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as modified by the appellate authority if the punishment so imposed is shockingly disproportionate or excessive and misquoting of provisions disentitles the Tribunal to quash the disciplinary proceedings. He draws our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma : (1996) 3 SCC 364. Relevant portion at paragraph 33(1) reads as under:
(1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character.
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect since the incident is of the year 1992 and Charge memo was issued on 22.6.2004 and there is abnormal and inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. The petitioners have also not denied it. Therefore, the tribunal justified in quashing the entire proceedings.
7. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in quashing the disciplinary proceedings?
8. It is needless to mention that the only reason assigned by the tribunal is that the appellate authority has misquoted the provisions and the authority has not given any cogent or convincing reasons while modifying the punishment. Mis-quoting of provision is not fatal to the disciplinary proceedings. It is settled law that miss-quoting of provision cannot defeat the proceedings and it is for the appellate authority who has to consider the appeal on its own merits by giving cogent and convincing reasons including the abnormal delay.
9. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate that the order passed by the Tribunal modifying the punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority is unsustainable and contrary to law as laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and we deem it appropriate to remit back the matter to the appellate authority as the respondent has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and as the appellate authority has not considered the same in proper perspective. Hence, the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal preferred by the respondent in proper perspective by analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders by giving cogent and convincing reasons.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.