1 WP-8837-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8837 OF 2011 Union of India & ors. ...Petitioner Versus Chandrakant B. Patil ...Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for petitioner. Mr.G.S.Walia and Mr.Rahul Walia for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. November 29, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel for the petitioners who are aggrieved by the order dated 28th April 2010 passed 2 WP-8837-2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing Original Application No. 224 of 2005. 2. The respondent who was holding the post of Senior Section Engineer with the Western Railway was imposed with major punishment of reduction to the next lower grade vide order dated 31/12/2003. The reduction to the lower grade was for a period of three years with future effect and loss of seniority. He had filed an appeal against the said order and the appellate authority dismissed it vide order dated 11/5/2004. The respondent then submitted a revision application which was also rejected on 14/1/2005. Hence he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.224 of 2005 . The regular pay scale of the respondent in the post of Senior Section Engineer was Rs.7450-10500 and he was, by way of punishment, placed into the next lower grade of pay i.s. Rs.6500-10500 and on a basic pay of Rs.6500/-. There is no dispute that it was a major penalty affecting the career of the respondent seriously. The order of punishment was passed on the basis of the enquiry officer’s report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and the charge memo was issued on 3/7/2003 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 alleging that due to the carelessness 3 WP-8837-2011 and negligence of the respondent, derailment of Train 117DN BDTS - DRD Shuttle took place on 31/1/2003 between Palgar and Boisar. The said derailment was suspected to have taken place due to rail fracture. 3. The Enquiry Officer did not examine any witnesses in support of the charges. The Enquiry Officer himself conducted examination of the respondent and even the basic documents sought to be produced by the charge-sheeted employee as per the application dated 31/11/2003 were not produced as the application was rejected and these documents were (1) Commissioner of Railway Safety’s report on derailment of Train No. 117 DN, (2) Copy of Joint Observation and Sketch of Derailment and (3) USFD Register which was maintained from June 2002 to January 2003 by the Senior Section Engineer (PW), Palghar. 4. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 22/12/2003 held the respondent guilty. The Tribunal examined the record placed before it and noted that on the very first day the respondent was examined and cross- examined by the Enquiry Officer and on the subsequent dates and more particularly on 29/11/2003 and 9/12/2003 the Enquiry Officer himself performed the double role of a Judge cum Prosecutor. The documents 4 WP-8837-2011 relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not proved by anybody. The enquiry was conducted in total disregard to the procedure and principles laid down in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Thus the statutory Rules and procedures were violated by the Enquiry Officer at every stage. The reasoning set out by the Tribunal to hold that the enquiry was vitiated is sound and cannot be faulted on any grounds. 5. The Tribunal also noted that in normal course it could have granted an opportunity to the employer to conduct de novo enquiry but there was no justification to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case. It referred to the decision in the caseof Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar [1978 (3) SCC 366] and Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors. [1999 SCC (L & S) 429]. The Original Application was allowed and the impugned order of punishment was quashed and set side along with the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before us and the reasoning set out in the impugned order. We find no reason to entertain this petition and, therefore, it must fail at the threshold. 5 WP-8837-2011 7. The petition is rejected summarily. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)