HARKHOO RAM (SINCE DIED)versusUNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 13382 of 2026

Harkhoo Ram (Since Died)
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Union of India and 6 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Shyam Sundar Pal, Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal (Dy.S.G.I.)

Chief Justice's Court
            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.05.2026 passed in
Original Application No. 502 of 2015 (for short 'O.A.'), whereby the O.A.
filed by the petitioner's father Harkhoo Ram against orders imposing
punishment dated 26.05.2014/29.05.2014, appellate order dated
14.08.2014 and revisional order dated 16.12.2014, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner Harkhoo Ram was appointed on a Group-D post on
12.03.1979 and was ultimately promoted to the post of Shunting Master
Grade-II in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- with grade pay of Rs.2400/-.

3. Whereafter, he became eligible for further promotion to the post of
Shunting Master Grade-I for which departmental written examination was
required. Out of 125 eligible candidates, 41 were declared successful out
which 30 candidates were empanelled for promotion to the post of
Shunting Master-I. The petitioner appeared in the examination, qualified
the same successfully and was empanelled for promotion, where he
assumed charge.

4. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 28.10.2013
alleging use of unfair means in the departmental examination, whereby he
got his answer book written by another candidate, namely Triveni
Shanker Shukla. After receipt of charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his
reply denying the allegations, leading to appointment of an Inquiry
Officer, who conducted the inquiry and submitted his report to the
disciplinary authority.
                                                             WRIA No. 13382 of 2026
                                  2


5. The disciplinary authority, by order dated 26.05.2014, imposed
punishment reverting the petitioner to the post of Shuntman on initial pay
and ordered for recovery of all the financial benefits from the date he got
selection to the post of Shunting Master-I. The order dated 26.05.2014
was followed by an order dated 29.05.2014 elaborating the punishment,
which reads as under:

     "He is permanently reduced from the post of Shunting Master-II (GP
     Rs.2400/-) to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post of Shuntman -II on
     initial pay in G.P. Rs.1800/- without any restoration to the grade or post
     from which he is reduced. Further, recovery of all the financial benefits
     from the date of his promotion to the post of Shunting Master -II to be
     made from his settlement dues."

6. Feeling aggrieved, appeal was filed which came to be dismissed and
revision also came to be dismissed by the competent authority. Feeling
aggrieved, the present O.A. was filed.

7. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the
petitioner admitted his guilt in his reply dated 11.11.2013 and during the
course of inquiry proceedings held on 29.04.2014. The inquiry was
conducted in the presence of the petitioner and his defence helper, and the
findings were further supported by the report of the Central Forensic
Science Laboratory which confirmed that the answer sheet was written by
another person, namely Triveni Shanker Shukla and finding that there was
no illegality or violation of natural justice during the course of inquiry,
the O.A. was dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that
the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the O.A. Submissions were
made that the inquiry officer had ordered for withdrawal of the charge
sheet and once the charge sheet was withdrawn, no punishment could
have been imposed.

9. Further submissions were made that two punishments were imposed
whereby, besides reverting the petitioner from Shunting Master-I to
Shunting Master-II, he has been reverted to the position of Shuntman,
which is not justified. Submissions were sought to be made that the
                                                             WRIA No. 13382 of 2026
                                   3


petitioner had clearly indicated that he had given blank answer sheet
during the course of written examination, however, the DOM got the
same written by Triveni Shanker Shukla and as such the petitioner could
not be blamed for the same.

10. Submissions were also sought to be made that the orders passed by the
appellate and revisional authorities were non speaking and, therefore, the
entire procedure adopted by the respondents being vitiated, the orders
impugned deserve to be set aside. It is pointed out that the petitioner
Harkhoo Ram died and now the present petition is being prosecuted by
his son.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders impugned.
Submissions were made that admission of wrongdoing is writ large and,
therefore, no interference is called for in the present proceedings.

12. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.

13. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner claimed as under:

     "(3) It is, infact, true that I had appeared in written test on 04.09.2010
     with the hope that objective type of questions only will be asked and it
     will be possible for me to tick the right answers.

     (4) When I received answer book on 04.09.2010 consisting subjective
     type of questions, had deposited the same after writing name, Design, &
     pay only in blank condition as directed by DOM/Mgs who was
     conducting the examination.

     (5) The above fact has already by been accepted by me at Hajipur before
     CVs on 14.11.2011 that answer book was not written by me. When and
     by whom the same was written, is not known to me.

     6. There was neither any pre-planning and malafied intention of mine nor
     I had been appeared in written examination with ulterior motive. How
     ever respective DOM was simply requested by me for help on account of
     my sincerity, loyality and good working knowledge of shunting Master.
     As such I have not done any irregularity. So charge of ommission and
                                                               WRIA No. 13382 of 2026
                                    4


     commission against me including contravening Rules 3 -I (i) (ii) (iii) of
     railway service conduct rule 1966 can not be imposed.

     It is therefore prayed that you will be kind enough to exempt me from the
     charges for which I shall ever pray."

14. Before the inquiry officer, the petitioner appeared along with his
defence help and was supplied the relied on documents which inter alia
included his answer sheet, answer sheet of Triveni Shanker Shukla and
CFSL report. The petitioner stated that he understood the charge and
made unconditional confession based on which the inquiry officer
observed as under:

     "Since the CO has now unconditionally pleaded guilty to the charge
     levied, the inquiry is terminated forthwith as the charge is established.

     The inquiry is over and all withdrew."

15. A perusal of above would reveal that the petitioner unequivocally
admitted the wrongdoing whereby, in the written examination, his answer
sheet was written by Triveni Shanker Shukla based on which he got
empanelled and promoted. The allegation made was that the petitioner
had supplied blank answer sheet, however, the DOM looking to his
sincerity, loyality and good working knowledge of Shunting Master, got
the answer sheet written by Triveni Shukla are, to say the least,
preposterous. Before the inquiry officer, he unconditionally pleaded his
guilt to the charge levied, based on which inquiry was terminated holding
the charge established. Whereafter the inquiry officer observed that the
inquiry is over and 'all withdrew'. The phrase 'all withdrew' essentially
pertains to those who were participating in the inquiry i.e. I.O., Presenting
Officer, Charged Officer and defence help and the said withdrawal had
nothing to do with the charge sheet or the charges and the interpretation
put by the petitioner in this regard also is absolutely baseless.

16. So far as the submissions made regarding double punishment is
concerned, the said plea also is baseless, inasmuch as once it was found
that the petitioner had not written the answer sheet, his promotion based
on marks obtained therein was bound to be reversed and thereafter, for the
                                                                                           WRIA No. 13382 of 2026
                                                                   5


                                    misconduct, he was required to be visited with a penalty and therefore,
                                    insofar as the penalty is concerned, the same is only one, i.e. reversion as
                                    Shuntman-II, other one is only cancellation of result, which was obtained
                                    by fraud.

                                    17. So far as the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities
                                    are concerned, a bare look at the memo of appeal would reveal that there
                                    has been no challenge to the finding, only assertions pertaining to the
                                    unconditional confession of guilt, seeking to be forgiven and setting aside
                                    of punishment have been made and therefore, there was nothing for the
                                    appellate and the revisional authorities to deal with.

                                    18. In view thereof, the plea raised regarding the nature of order passed
                                    also has no substance.

                                    19. In view of above discussion, no case for any kind of interference is
                                    made out in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed



                                                                       (Arun Kumar,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    RK/




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad