Judgment:
1. Since common question of law arises in all the three cases, they are disposed of by the following common order.
2. In all the above cases, jurisdiction of Additional Divisional Railway Manager (ADRM of short) to invoke Rule 25 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986 (for short Rules) to exercise power of revision and enhance punishment awarded by Disciplipary Authority, in under challenge.
3. Before we advert to the question of law, it may he useful to notice the broad facts of these cases:-- 4. In OA 1993/99, the applicant was Head Clerk (Stores), Commercial Wing, Renigunta. In the disciplinary proceedings after an inquiry, the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Carriage and Wagon), Guntakal imposed penalty of withholding of one set of travelling pass. The ADRM invoking Rule 25 issued the impugned show cause notice which is now impugned in this OA.5. In OA 1103/2000 the applicant was working as Chief Booking Supervisor/Gudur (Commercial). After the disciplinary enquiry, the penalty of reduction in the time scale was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The ADRM invoking Rule 25 issued show cause notice for enhancement to that of compulsory retirement. The applicant submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. Before a final order was passed, he filed the present OA and before it was admitted, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. MA 662/2001 was filed by the applicant to amend the OA which was allowed. Thus the final order passed by the revising authority is under challenge in this OA.6. In OA 1550/2000 the applicant was working as Senior Travelling Ticket Examiner (Commercial Branch) Hyderabad Division. The Divisional Commercial Manager imposed the penalty of reversion to lower grade and his pay was reduced into the lower scale of pay. After issuing the notice under Rule 25, the ADRM Hyderabad passed the final order enhancing the punishment to that of removal which was carried in appeal to the Chief Commercial Manager, Secunderabad who confirmed the order of removal.
7. It has been clearly conceded by the learned Counsel for the applicants that in all the above matters, the orders of Disciplinary Authority awarding punishment, were not carried in appeal. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that though they have not filed the appeals, ADRM, being Appellate Authority, committed an error in invoking jurisdiction under Rule 25 to issue notices or pass final orders enhancing the penalty. Under Sub-rule 4(ii) of Rule 25, only an authority higher than the appellate authority can exercise power of revision. Hence, the proceedings of ADRM are hit by Sub-rule 4(ii) of Rule 25.
9. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is sufficient if we reproduce sub-rule 1 and Sub-rule 4 of Rule 25 of the Rules:-- "25. Revision:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules- (iii) The General Manager of a Railway Administration or an authority of that status in the case of a Railway servant serving under his control, or (iv) the appellate authority not below the rank of a Divisional Railway Manager in cases where no appeal has been preferred or (v) , any other authority not below the rank of Deputy Head of Department in the case of a Railway servant serving under his control--may at any time either on his or its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 29 after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary, and may- (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (a) no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Railway servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed; (b) subject to the provision of Rule 14, where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 6 or the penalty specified in Clause (iv) of Rule 6 which falls within the scope of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order under revision to any of the penalties specified in this sub-clause, no such penalty shall be imposed except after following the procedure for inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 9, unless such inquiry has already been held and also except after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary :(2) xxx xxx xxx xxx(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx (i) by the appellate or revising authority where it has already considered the appeal or the case and passed orders thereon; and (ii) by a revising authority unless it is higher than the appellate authority where an appeal has been preferred or where no appeal has been preferred and the time limit laid down for revision by the appellate authority, has expired.
Provided that nothing contained in Clauses (i) and (ii) above, shall apply to revision by the President." It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that ADRM does not hold the same rank of that of DRM and hence ADRM cannot invoke the powers vested under Sub-rule 1(iv) of Rule 25 which provides that when DRM happens to be an appellate authority then he can exercise power of revision when no appeal was preferred. The learned Counsel for the respondents, Shri N.R. Devaraj, however, controverts this submission and submits that both the officers are of the same rank carrying the same scale of pay and holding concurrent powers in disciplinary/appeal matters against employees who are under their control. As the applicants were working in the commercial department in the division, they come under the direct control of the ADRM concerned.
In our view, it may not be necessary to decide this question in these cases. Even assuming that ADRM could be said to be holding the same rank of DRM and the expression DRM in Clause (iv) can also be read as ADRM, in view of the above clause, as ADRM was shown as an appellate authority, he can also exercise powers of revision.
10. But Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (4) provides, an exception to the exercise of power under Sub-rule (1), that the revising authority shall be higher than the appellate authority, even where no appeal has been preferred, when an appeal has been preferred to the appellate authority, only its higher authority would have to necessarily exercise revisional jurisdiction. Even where no appeal has been preferred, unless revising authority happens to be higher authority than the appellate authority, it cannot exercise power of revision. The proviso to Sub-rule 4, however, exempts from such restriction to the exercise of power in respect of the President. In respect of other authorities mentioned in Sub-rule (1), this restriction applies. Hence, ADRM being the appellate authority in the above cases, he cannot exercise power of revision even under Clause (iv) of Sub-rule (1). His higher authority alone should exercise such power. In this view, the show cause notices issued and the revisional orders passed by the ADRM in the above OAs as well as the appellate orders confirming the enhancement, are without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed. The above OAs are accordingly allowed but without costs.