# Satya Narain Dubey v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1592
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6089 of 2023
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-narain-dubey-v-u-o-i-ors-50145
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Service Matter - Railway
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968
- Rule 14(1) - Where any penalty is
imposed on a Railway servant on the
ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge, the
disciplinary authority may consider the
circumstances of the case and make such
orders thereon as it deems fit. Issue:
Whether the disciplinary authority is
required to pass a reasoned and speaking
order under Rule 14(1) of the Rules,
1968? Held: The requirement of the Rule
mandates the disciplinary authority to
'consider the circumstances' of the case,
i.e., the trial court judgment leading to the
conviction of the officer. The conduct/role
which led to the conviction of the officer
on a criminal charge has to be considered.
The disciplinary authority is not required
to enter into the merits/evidence of the
trial proceedings. The Rule does not
mandate the authority to pass a reasoned
and
speaking
order.
The
disciplinary
authority is not required to sit in appeal
on the findings returned by the trial court
convicting the government servant. In the
instant case, the order of punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority
categorically records that the explanation
of the petitioner was considered and that
the charge against the petitioner in the
trial was duly proved. The Court held that
it was sufficient compliance with Rule
14(1) of the Rules, 1968. (Para 16, 17)

Dismissed. (E-5)
5 All. Satya Narain Dubey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1593

## Text

1592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perspectives that require the creation of job
opportunities across the societal structure.
All these are essentially matters of policy.
Judicial review must tread warily"

23. Supreme Court similarly in
Sanjay Kumar Manjul vs. Chairman,
UPSC11, observed as under:

"25. The statutory authority is
entitled to frame statutory rules laying
down terms and conditions of service as
also the qualifications essential for holding
a particular post. It is only the authority
concerned who can take ultimate decision
therefore.

27. It is well settled that the
superior courts while exercising their
jurisdiction under articles 226 or 32 of the
Constitution of India ordinarily do not
direct
an
employer
to
prescribe
a
qualification for holding a particular
post."

(emphasis supplied)

24. On specific query, learned counsel
for the petitioner is unable to show as to
how the amendment in the Rules 2016
makes Rule 10 manifestly arbitrary merely
for the reason that the Rule making
authority does not want a candidate for the
post of Sub-Inspector who has attained the
age of 28 years on the cut of date to be
considered eligible for the post.

25. Having regard to the discussions
hereinabove, the writ petition being devoid
of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1592
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2023

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 6089 of 2023

Satya Narain Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

Civil Law - Service Matter - Railway
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968
- Rule 14(1) - Where any penalty is
imposed on a Railway servant on the
ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge, the
disciplinary authority may consider the
circumstances of the case and make such
orders thereon as it deems fit. Issue:
Whether the disciplinary authority is
required to pass a reasoned and speaking
order under Rule 14(1) of the Rules,
1968? Held: The requirement of the Rule
mandates the disciplinary authority to
'consider the circumstances' of the case,
i.e., the trial court judgment leading to the
conviction of the officer. The conduct/role
which led to the conviction of the officer
on a criminal charge has to be considered.
The disciplinary authority is not required
to enter into the merits/evidence of the
trial proceedings. The Rule does not
mandate the authority to pass a reasoned
and
speaking
order.
The
disciplinary
authority is not required to sit in appeal
on the findings returned by the trial court
convicting the government servant. In the
instant case, the order of punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority
categorically records that the explanation
of the petitioner was considered and that
the charge against the petitioner in the
trial was duly proved. The Court held that
it was sufficient compliance with Rule
14(1) of the Rules, 1968. (Para 16, 17)

Dismissed. (E-5)
5 All. Satya Narain Dubey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1593
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner - applicant and learned counsel
for the Union of India / Railway
Department.

2. The present writ petition is directed
against the judgment and order dated
28.03.2022,
passed
by
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad (for short, "Tribunal"),
in
Original Application No.330 /1393 of 2011,
(Satya Narayan Dubey versus Union of
India and others).

3. The services of the petitioner came
to be terminated pursuant to Rule 14(1) of
the
Railway
Servants
(Discipline
&
Appeal) Rules, 1968, (for short "Rules,
1968"), on being convicted by the learned
trial Court under Sections 409 & 477-A
IPC and 13(2) & 13(1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act to undergo 7 years, 2 years
and 5 years of rigorous imprisonment
besides imposition of fine.

4. Petitioner has since been bailed out
by the Appellate Court. The learned Tribunal
was of the view that none of the orders
passed either by the disciplinary authority,
appellate authority or the revisional authority
qualify as reasoned and speaking order, but
having regard to the fact that the petitioner
being convicted by the trial Court and the
penalty imposed thereof upon him is
sustainable.

5. Relevant portion of paragraph nos.5
and 6 of the impugned order is extracted:-

"5. No doubt we are of the firm
view that none of the three orders i.e. the
order of the disciplinary authority, the
appellate authority and the revisionary
authority would qualify as reasoned and
speaking orders, we have also to take
cognizance of the fact that the applicant
has been convicted by the competent
Criminal Court, and even through the
orders suffer from legal infirmity, the root
cause of the penalty of removal from
service sustains. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant has
preferred an appeal against his conviction,
which is still pending.

6. In the light of the peculiar facts
and circumstance of the case it would not
be appropriate to award any relief to the
applicant even though he may have been
removed from service by way of cryptic and
non speaking order. Therefore, since no
relief is possible at this juncture, this OA
stands disposed. The applicant would be at
liberty to revive the same in case he
manages an adequate and appropriate
relief in his criminal appeal."

6. Petitioner after being released on
bail, appeared before the authority and
submitted a copy of the order of the trial
Court, pursuant thereof, a show cause notice
dated 01.11.2007, came to be issued calling
upon the petitioner to file objection /
representation to the proposed penalty of
removal from service. Pursuant thereof,
petitioner appeared and filed his objection
dated 08.11.2007, wherein, a cryptic reply
was given that he is not satisfied with the
judgment and order passed by the CBI Court.
Further, it is stated that he has filed an appeal
which has been admitted, consequently,
prayed that his case for reinstatement be
considered sympathetically.

7. The disciplinary authority vide
order
dated
18.12.2007,
rejected
the
1594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
representation / explanation furnished by
the petitioner after carefully considering the
explanation and was of the opinion that the
charge in the criminal trial against the
delinquent employee was duly proved.
Accordingly, punishment of removal came
to be imposed. The petitioner filed an
appeal followed by revision, the same came
to be dismissed.

8. In this backdrop, it is submitted
that the learned Tribunal returned a finding
that
the
impugned
orders
imposing
punishment upon the petitioner do not
qualify as reasoned and speaking order,
therefore, the matter should have been
remitted to the disciplinary authority to
pass a fresh order in terms of the Rule 14
(i) of the Rules, 1968, which mandates that
disciplinary authority may consider the
circumstance of the case and make such
order thereon.

9. The short question that arises for
consideration is as to whether disciplinary
authority is required to pass a reasoned and
speaking order under Rule 14(i) of Rules,
1968.

10. The services of the petitioner
came to terminated under Rule 14 (i) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1968 (for short ''Rules,
1968')

Rule 14 of the Rules, 1968, is
extracted:-

"14.
Special
procedure
in
certain cases

Notwithstanding
anything
contained in Rules 9 to 13:

(i) where any penalty is imposed
on a Railway servant on the ground of
conduct which has led to his conviction on
a criminal charge; or

(ii) .............

(iii) ............

The disciplinary authority may
consider the circumstances of the case
and make such orders thereon as it deems
fit :

[Provided
that
the
Railway
servant may be given an opportunity of
making representation on the penalty
proposed to be imposed before any order is
made in a case falling under Clause (i).

Provided
further
that
the
Commission shall be consulted, where such
consultation is necessary, before any orders
are made in any case under this rule.] "

11. When the disciplinary authority
provides the reason behind his decision, the
decision is treated as an reasoned decision.
Speaking order or reasoned order is
considered the third pillar of natural justice.
Speaking orders are essential for judicial
review. Circumstances of the case is a piece
of evidence that indicates the probability or
improbability of an event (such as crime).

12. Admittedly, petitioner came to be
convicted in a corruption case, on a complaint
made by the Railways, while petitioner was
the Section Engineer. In matters pertaining to
corruption there is not much for the
disciplinary
authority
to
consider
the
circumstances of the case as a detailed finding
of fact along-with the evidence in support
thereof was considered by the trial Court in its
judgment and order passed against the
petitioner in criminal case under Indian Penal
Code and Prevention of Corruption Act.
5 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1595

13. It is not the case of the petitioner
that he came to be convicted for offences
under the Indian Penal Code alone. In that
event the disciplinary authority was bound
to consider the circumstances, role and the
conduct of the officer in commission of the
offence. For instance, as to whether the role
of the delinquent employee in commission
of the offence, was only of exhortation and
no more, the disciplinary authority in that
event would consider the circumstance of
the case while proposing to impose penalty
upon the officer. In a case of direct role in
commission of the crime the departmental
punishment would be severe.

14. Cases of corruption stand on
different footing there is not much for the
disciplinary authority to consider the
circumstances of the case involving the
delinquent employee. The involvement of
the petitioner in the commission of the
offence of corruption is direct being the
main kingpin.

15. We do not find merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that a reasoned and speaking
order should have been passed by the
disciplinary authority.

16. Rule 14 in the case of conviction
of the government servant is required to
consider the ''circumstances of case' and
make such orders thereon. The Rule does
not mandate the authority to pass a
reasoned
and
speaking
order.
The
disciplinary authority is not required to sit
in appeal on the findings returned by the
trial court convicting the government
servant.

17.

The
impugned
order
of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority categorically records that the
explanation
of
the
petitioner
was
considered and the charge against the
petitioner in the trial was duly proved. That
is sufficient compliance of Rule 14 (i) of
Rules 1968. The learned Tribunal misread
the Rule 14 (i), requiring a reasoned and
speaking order, which is not mandated
under Rule 14 (i). The requirement of the
Rule
mandates
that
the
disciplinary
authority to ''consider the circumstances' of
the case i.e. trial Court judgement leading
to the conviction of the officer. The conduct
/ role which has led to the conviction of the
officer on a criminal charge has to be
considered. The disciplinary authority is
not required to enter into the merit /
evidence of the trial proceedings. It is not
the case of the petitioner that his role in the
act of corruption, during the discharge of
his duty and responsibility, was secondary
and not primary.

18. We do not find any merit in the
petition. The writ petition being devoid of
merit, is accordingly, dismissed.

19. No cost.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1595
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 21096 of 2018

Vijay Pal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:s
Sri Shyamal Narain, Sri Ravi Prakash Bhatt

Counsel for the Respondents: