Regarding Policy on Drunkenness on Duty – NFIR
The Secretary (E),
Sub: Policy on ‘Drunkenness on Duty’-reg.
Ref: (i) NFIR’s PNM Item No. 29/2018 — discussed in the PNM meeting held with the Railway Board on 10th/11th May , 2018.
(ii) Railway Board’s letter No. 2001/Safety-I/23/4 dated 27/11/2001.
(iii) Railway Board’s letter No. 2009/Safety(DM)/6/12/Committee dated 02/11/2012.
(iv) Railway Board’s letter No.2009/Safety(DM)/6/12/Committee dated 20/052014 addressed to the Federation.
(v) Railway Board’s letter No. 2009/Safety(DM)/6/12/Committee dated 18/04/2017.
(vi) NFIR’s letter No. IV/Safety/A dated 09/06/2014, 12th July 2017 & 07/08/2017.
(vii) Railway Board’s letter No. 2009/Safety (DM)/6/12 Committee dated 01/06/2018.
During discussions in the NFIR’s PNM meeting held with the Railway Board on 10th/11th May, 2018, Federation handed over a copy of letter dated 09/11/2017 issued by the General Manager, South Central Railway to DRMs regarding holding of 2′1 Breath Analyzer Test. The Official Side accordingly agreed to issue appropriate clarification to all Zonal Railways in the matter. In this connection, Federation takes note that the Railway Board vide letter dated 01/06/2018 has issued clarification to the Zonal Railways.
2. The Federation has since learnt that the PCEE, South Central Railway vide letter dated 16/07/2018 has made reference to the Railway Board citing Board’s letter dated 01/06/2018, seeking clarification which in fact not needed and has also made some unnecessary suggestions. The PCEE, S.C. Railway has in fact suggested to include “issuance of major penalty charge sheet” to the crew when found positive in BA test while “signing off”, which action is unfortunate. A copy of PCEE/SCR’s letter dated 16/07/2018 is enclosed for reference.
Citing Board’s instructions dated 15/10/2014, attempt has also been made by S.C. Railway to introduce the concept of Aptitude test in the channel of promotion of Loco Pilot (Goods) to Loco Pilot (Pass) on the pretext of SPAD cases. An objectionable suggestion has also been made to remove Running Staff (LP/ALP) involved in SPAD from the running cadre and absorb them in other Department. At the same time, there is another suggestion made by S.C. Railway to take up nominated Loco Inspector under D&AR whose Loco Pilot is involved in alleged SPAD.
3. In the above context. NFIR desires to convey to the Railway Board that:-
3.1 Railway Board’s instructions dated 01/06/2018 are sufficient to address the issues.
3.2 The suggestion for holding Aptitude test again to the Loco Pilot (Goods) for promotion to Loco Pilot (Pass) will not produce better results, on the other hand lead to staff demoralization. There is therefore no need to disturb the extant policy.
3.3 The suggestion of taking away LP/ALP involved in SPAD from running cadre is imprudent and will contribute for avoidable problems. Instead resorting to such negative methods, a realistic assessment on incidents happened and effective motivation involving organized labour representatives is needed.
3.4 On the suggestion to take up nominated Loco Inspector under D&AR, whose Loco Pilot has passed signal at danger, Federation desires to state that it is like punishing Director of IAS Academy, who had imparted training to an IAS Probationer in the Academy few years ago, on Law and Order situation where the trainee after gaining experience failed to control the Law and Order situation. It has been unheard that the Director of IAS Academy has been punished for the failure of a District Magistrate. If Railway Board attempts to issue such an instruction, in that event Sr.DEEs/Sr.DMEs and CMEs/CEEs should also be taken up in cases of SPAD wherever taking place. Federation fails to understand as to why CLIs/LIs are to be made scapegoats, for the errors/mistakes (bonafide or otherwise) committed by. Loco Pilots. Such steps would be unethical, unprofessional, highly irregular and grossly illegal. Therefore, the suggestion made by the PCEE/SCR is not proper.
NFIR, therefore, requests the Railway Board to kindly address the issues duly taking into consideration, the Federation’s views. A separate meeting with PED (Safety) may also be convened to enable to the Federation to explain its views more elaborately.
(Dr. M. Raghavaiah)