ZAFARULLAH OURESHI Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION

JUSTICE ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ Appellant, Mr. Zafarullah Qureshi, has fled this appeal against the Notification No. Admn‑1/91%GS/15, dated 17‑3‑1993 whereby penalty of "Censure" has been imposed upon him in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He filed a departmental appeal which has not been responded to, therefore, after waiting for 90 days, he has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

2. The facts are that Mr. Zafarullah Qureshi was working as a General Manager (B‑21) in Pakistan Railways, Lahore. He was suspended due to fatal accident of 7‑Up Tezgam which took place at Ghotki Railway Station on 8‑6‑1991 resulting in loss of about 55 persons and injuries to 182 persons. He was charge‑sheeted vide No. Admn‑1/91/GS/15, dated 8‑7‑1992 alongwith statement of following charges: ‑‑

"(a) You failed to enforce measures to ensure safety of train operations on the system;

(b) You failed to carry out effective and meaningful inspections to ensure that the train operation on the system was proceeding safely;

(c) You failed to ensure proper control and check upon the various Heads of Departments, especially concerned with train operations like C.O.P.S., C.E.N./Signals etc. for carrying out their assignments/duties/functions for enforcing safety in the train operation system;

(d) You failed as Head of the Organisation to ensure that the Divisional Organisations of the system performed their assigned duties and functions in such a manner that the safety of train operations was not put to jeopardy;

(e) You failed to enforce operating discipline amongst the staff connected with train working and to enforce measures which could ensure protection to sensitive signalling equipments with the result that the tampering of these equipment was often resorted to by the operating and maintenance staff leading to dangerous consequences and endangering the safe running of trains;

(f) You failed to take suitable disciplinary measures commensurate with seriousness of the accidents against the staff for dereliction of duties involved in the accidents;

(g) You failed to take cognizance of the D.O. letter No. T‑II/91‑ACC/3, dated 28‑4‑1991 and apart from serious fatal accidents, enumerated in the charge‑sheet, a spate of other accidents also took place like rolling away of 24 wagons at Golra Railway Station on 24‑5‑1991."

A regular inquiry was conducted by Mr. T.Z. Farooqi, Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan. He submitted a detailed report on all the allegations. Concluding paras from 29 to 38 are as follows:‑‑

"29. On the basis of detailed discussions and the analysis of the charges A, B, C and D in the preceding paras. and the lacuna in the laid dawn operating procedure, the General Manager is not directly responsible for the safety of the train operation/inspections. Hence the charges A, B, C and D are not proved to the hilt.

You failed to enforce operating discipline amongst the staff connected with train working and to enforce measures which could ensure protection to sensitive signalling equipment was often resorted to by the operating and maintenance staff leading to dangerous consequences and endangering the safe running of trains;

CHARGE `F

You failed to take suitable disciplinary measures commensurate with seriousness of the accident against staff for dereliction of duties in the accident;

30. As both charges E and F are concerned regarding enforcement of operative discipline amongst the staff connected with train working and to enforce measures which could ensure protection to sensitive signalling equipments and suitable disciplinary measures with serious accident against the staff for dereliction of duties involved in the accident, therefore, the same are being discussed/analysed collectively.

31. The prosecution in this regard maintains that there was rampant operating indiscipline amongst the staff' which lead to compromising the safety of sensitive signalling equipment and adoption of illegal and unauthorised operating equipment and adoption and operating Staff respectively and the failure on the part of the concerned supervisor/Officers to curb such tendencies amongst the staff. Likewise, the prosecution is supporting the said charges on the ground that operating indiscipline was prevalent amongst the staff.

32. The accused officer in his defence stated that the General Managers part to enforce correct maintenances and inspection was complete in all respects. So far as the Ghotki Accident is concerned, it was because of tampering by the staff locally posted on the system. It has been pointed out by the prosecution witness No. 5 that there was no reported instance of t ampering available in the Headquarters Office before Ghotki accident. The accused officer in his defence summed up his arguments stating that in the maintenance and operation of signalling equipments General Manager has no role to play. The accused officer further pointed out that in all the three cases of accidents pertaining to his period, adequate punishment was awarded to the concerned but contrarily his successor the present General Manager reduced the punishment in much more serious cases, like derailment of 24 DN, Quetta Express at Kharian Cantt.

33. These charges of indiscipline were also discussed in detail in the light of personal/documentary evidence and has been proved that the Divisional Superintendents arc responsible for the operating discipline on the system. In this regard question Nos. 205, 2(K, 207, 212, 255 and 256 refers.

34. Court witness No. 1 (Mr. Maula Bukhsh Soomro, Divisional Superintendent) who remained posted as Divisional Superintendent, Sukkur from 20‑4‑1990 till 6‑5‑1991, in reply to certain questions by the Court showed his unawareness about the Relay Inter‑locking system and other matters on the system (Court Question Nos. 382 and 383 refers).

35. On detailed examination of the relevant rules, regulations/personal/documentary evidence, the General Manager, is responsible for the posting of Divisional Superintendents and Deputy Divisional Superintendents (Court Questions Nos. 442 and 443 refers). However, the responsibility of safe operation of train and working of the railway stations appears to be the total responsibility of the Divisional Superintendents. General Manager cannot be held responsible for any lapse on their account. Historically also despite such accidents having taken place before and after the Ghotki accident, no General Manager has been held responsible. I would, therefore, not hold the accused officer guilty of these two charges. However, since he is overall incharge of the Divisional Superintendents who have been primarily negligent in performing their functions, and ensuring train safety he at hest could be held responsible for not getting his Divisional Superintendent on toe.

CHARGE `G'

You failed to take cognizance of the D.O. letter No. T‑II/91‑ACC/3, dated 28‑4‑1991 and apart from serious fatal accidents enumerated in the charge‑sheet, a spate other accidents also took place like rolling away of 24 wagons at Golra Railway Station on 24‑5‑1991.

36. D. O. letter mentioned in the charge is placed on record as (Exh.I'‑29). The prosecution in this regard is of the view that after going through prosecution evidences the facts remains that measures to avoid occurrence of accident could not be adopted and these have to be pointed out by the Railway Board. As already discussed in detail in the previous charges, it has been proved that measures for safety operation of train is not the direct responsibility of the General Manager (Accused Officer). All relevant rules/regulations/instructions/policies have been examined in detail during inquiry proceedings which reflect that laxity existed which has also been confirmed practically on the site visit at Ghotki Station. In the statement/cross‑examination of both the prosecution and defence, laxity, negligence, inefficiency and ineffectiveness on the part of whole system has been proved but in no way it has been proved on the part of individual Accused Officer as General Manager. The charge, therefore, stands not proved.

CONCLUSI ONS

37. Charge (A) Not proved.

Charge (B) Not proved.

Charge (C) Not proved.

Charge (D) Not proved.

Charge (E) Not proved.

Charge (F) Not proved.

Charge (G) Not proved.

RECOMMENDATIONS

38. In the light of personal/documentary evidences/rules and regulations studied during inquiry proceedings already discussed under all the charges in detail, it has been proved that the system of Railway bears laxity, inefficiency, and calls for a lot of improvements, particularly at Divisional Superintendent levels. In this regard as Inquiry Officer, I feel it necessary to put forward the following recommendations:‑‑

(i) The Additional General Manager should be assigned clear cut duties delegated by the General Manager are to watch the system periodically on behalf of General. Manager.

(ii) There should be a chain of responsibilities from General Manager level to field operating staff so that each and every officer/official may be specific of their duties and their duties may be linked with the next higher/subordinate officer/official in order to feel every one responsible individually as well as collectively.

(iii) Proper training facility should be arranged at all levels and must be periodically refreshed.

(iv) Proper planning on the whole system must be made to ensure physical applications of safety criteria.

(v) Since the Railway system is mostly running on a most sophisticated electronic instruments and software computer system, necessary arrangements to meet the requirement of such sophisticated systems i.e. air‑conditioning, security, protection from mishandling etc. must be made:'

3. A final show‑cause notice was issued on 17‑2‑1993 which was replied on 4‑3‑1993 and the appellant has been awarded penalty of `Censure'.

4. We have heard Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate, for the appellant. He argued that appellant has been exonerated of all the seven charges by the Inquiry Officer and has not been held responsible for the accident. It has been submitted that he has only been held responsible for failure to enforce operating the discipline amongst the staff which resulted in the accident.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has got more than 25 years unblemished record of service. He being General Manager of Pakistan Railways and sitting at Lahore cannot be held responsible for the lapses on the part of his subordinates. It is argued that this punishment of `censure' is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, submitted that the appellant was not vigilant over all his subordinates which is the prime duty of a General Manager, therefore, he has rightly been censured for the above referred accident wherein so many persons died.

7. There is no doubt that such incidents frequently occur but we have to see that action is taken according to law. So far the traffic accident is concerned we are in agreement with the Inquiry Officer that the system of Railway bears laxity, inefficiency and calls for a lot of improvements, particularly at Divisional Superintendent levels, but there is another aspect of case that persons responsible should be punished but the Inquiry Officer on conclusion has clearly stated in para. 37 of the report that all the seven charges have not been proved against the appellant. On the contrary it has been proved that the system of Railway bears laxity, inefficiency and calls for a lot of improvements particularly at Divisional Superintendent levels. He has recommended as under: ‑‑

"(i) The Additional General Manager should be assigned clear cut duties delegated by the General Manager are to watch the system periodically on behalf of General Manager.

(ii) There should be a chain of responsibilities from General Manager level to field operating staff so that each and every officer/official may be specific of their duties and their duties may be linked with the next higher/subordinate officer/official in order to feel every one responsible individually as well as collectively.

(iii) Proper training facility should be arranged at all levels and must be periodically refreshed.

(iv) Proper planning of the whole system must be made to ensure physical applications of safety criteria.

(v) Since the Railway system is mostly running on a most sophisticated electronic instruments and software computer system, necessary arrangements to meet the requirement of such sophisticated systems i.e. air‑conditioning, security, protection from mishandling etc. must be made."

8. The Authorised Officer, Mr. Naseer Ahmed, Secretary/Chairman, Ministry of Railways, did not agree with the Inquiry Officer to some extent and observed that the General Manager is not held directly responsible yet he is overall Incharge of the operation and it has not been correctly stated by the Inquiry Officer that the appellant is not directly responsible for this accident but he has been found to have proper control and check upon the merits and demerits of the department and the Divisional Superintendent of Pakistan Railways and has been censured for the aforesaid seven charges.

9. In the concluding para. 124, the Secretary has stated as under: ‑‑

"The accused officer has been serving in the Pakistan Railways for the last 29 years. His previous service record has been good. In view of the extenuating circumstances and the fact that the officer has remained under suspension for a considerable period and was subsequently released from suspension, the undersigned feels inclined to take lenient view and hereby impose minor penalty of `Censure' upon the accused officer."

10. Upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant has been exonerated from all the seven charges and no action was at all taken by the Pakistan Railways against the Divisional Superintendent in whose jurisdiction this accident has taken place, therefore, being General Manager, Pakistan Railways, sitting at Lahore and having no control directly on the staff, cannot be held responsible for the lapses of Divisional Superintendent and the Government has not taken action against Divisional Superintendents who has direct control over the Division. If this was the view it was obligatory for authorities to have ordered inquiry against Divisional Superintendent, which was not even done for the reasons best known. In our view the action against General Manager in these circumstances as stated above is not justified while appellant has unblemished record as admitted by Secretary/Chairman, Pakistan Railways. We, therefore, accept this appeal setting aside the impugned order of censure against the appellant. Moreover, the period appellant remained under suspension is treated as leave due.

H.B.T./898/Sr.F Appeal accepted.