1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.10257 OF 2010 Shri Nasim Ali Abid Ali ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.D.V.Gangal i/b Mrs.Vaishali Agane for Petitioner. Mr.P.J.Pandian for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 26, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13th April 2010 in OA No.309 of 2010. The principal grievance of the Petitioner before this Court is that although the Petitioner specifically raised issue regarding the inquiry proceedings being vitiated on account of non-compliance of Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, the same has not been dealt with. The said Rule reads thus: 2 “9(9)(c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into an article of charge or appoints a Board of Inquiry or any other inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order in writing, appoint a Railway or any other Government servant to be known as `Presenting Officer’ to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.” 3. According to the Petitioner admittedly no Presenting Officer was appointed as was required to be done under this provision. In absence thereof, the inquiry proceedings against the Petitioner were vitiated. This aspect though specifically urged before the Tribunal, has not been dealt with at all. 4. The argument though looks attractive at the first blush, in our opinion, stands addressed in the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in Paragraph 8 of the impugned decision. It is observed that it will be open to the Petitioner to make representation to the Revisional Authority who in turn would consider all aspects of the matter and take decision as may be warranted in the fact situation of the present case. 5. The argument of the Petitioner is that the Revisional Authority cannot hold that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated. For, no such power is vested in the Revisional Authority. Even this argument deserves to be stated to be 3 rejected. The power of the Revisional Authority is spelt out in Rule 25. Amongst others, sub-clause (c) of Rule 25(1)(v) reads thus: “25(1)(v)(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 cases.” 6. Going by the plain language of this Rule, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the question whether the inquiry has vitiated on the ground stated by the Petitioner, can also be examined by the Revisional Authority and if the Revisional Authority is convinced with the said argument, is competent to remit the case to the Authority or to any other Authority directing such Authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. In view of the expansive power bestowed on the Revisional Authority, there is no reason to contend that the question agitated before this Court cannot be examined by the said Authority. Indeed, the question which has been raised by the Petitioner will have to be addressed at the outset, as, if that contention were to be accepted, it would go to the root of the matter and perhaps the inquiry will have to be restarted from the stage of appointment of the Presenting Officer. However, we express no opinion in that behalf. Instead, while dismissing this Petition, 4 we make it clear that it will be open to the Revisional Authority to consider all aspects of the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. The only indulgence that can be shown to the Petitioner is to permit the Petitioner to submit supplementary representation in addition to the representation already filed on 20th April 2010. The Revisional Authority may treat both these representations as filed within time and decide on its own merits in accordance with law. The supplementary representation, however, shall be filed not later than one week from today. 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)