HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No16424/2006 DT. 3-2-2010 1. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Guntakal Divsiion, South Central Railway, Gutakal and two others. …Petitioners V. Y.K. Suryanarayana. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.16424/2006 ORAL ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) In the present writ petition, the petitioners obtained a rule from this court calling upon the records pertaining to the orders passed in M.A. No.322/2005 in OA No.1168/2004 dt. 14-7-2005 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad and to quash the same. The respondent herein who filed OA No.1168/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad while working as Senior TTE/Sleeper at Guntakal was involved in CBI trap on 23-7- 1999, and for which a charge memo dt. 5-9-2000 was served on him with two charges. The first charge against him is that while he was working as Senior TTE of Train No.288 Bellary-Tirupathi (Meter gauge) passenger on 23-7-1999 demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.16/- by way of illegal gratification for providing two berths in sleeper class in S-6 coach from Deva Prasad and Bashoo Saheb, passengers travelling from Anantapur to Tirupathi with two second class original general tickets bearing Nos.26712 and 26713 respectively and thus committed a grave misconduct. The second charge framed against the respondent is that on the same day he was found in possession of unaccounted excess cash of Rs.416/- and thereby committed a grave misconduct. While submitting his explanation to the charge memo on 13-9-2000 to the Divisional Commercial Manager, Guntakal, who is the disciplinary authority, the respondent requested the authorities for supply of documents relied upon in the charge sheet. He attended the enquiry on 17- 11-2000. In spite of making representations, the authorities did not supply the documents. The respondent filed OA No.1857/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad for quashing the charge sheet dt. 5-9-2000. The Tribunal disposed of OA on 23-10-2002 directing the respondents therein, who are petitioners herein, to furnish a copy of report of CBI to the applicant (respondent herein) in OA No.1857/2000. Thereafter, the respondent/applicant filed OA No.1168/2004 for quashing the charge memo dt. 5-9-2000 contending that even after giving directions, the petitioners herein have neither made available the copy of the report of CBI nor contended that the said report shall not be relied to prove the charges levelled against the respondent; the petitioners appointed enquiry officer after a gap of eight months and the enquiry officer issued notice fixing the date of enquiry as 22-9-2003, but the enquiry could not be completed even after four years elapsed from the date of charge sheet. In the meanwhile, the third respondent-Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Guntakal Division, SC Railways, Guntakal issued proceedings on 24-8-2004 for filling up the post of HTTE/HTC. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways disposed of OA No.1168/2004 on 25-11-2004, at the admission stage, directing the respondent therein ie., petitioners herein to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order, failing which the proceedings shall be deemed to have been dropped with a direction to the respondent herein to co-operate with the authorities to complete the proceedings within the time limit and consider the case of the respondent for promotion without reference to the pendency of the enquiry, if he is found suitable for the promotion. However, the enquiry could not be completed by the petitioners herein within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. Explaining the difficulties for non-compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal, namely, to complete enquiry within three months, the petitioners herein filed MA No.322/2005 stating that the order of the Tribunal was received on 10-12-2004; Sri L.R.Sunder, Senior Cashier, Secunderabad, the defence counsel for the respondent was removed from service and as such he could not be allowed to act as Defence Counsel; the authorities advised the respondent to nominate another defence counsel through their letter dt. 5-1-2005 and accordingly the respondent has given his choice of defence counsel through his letter dt. 18-1-2005 and his request of the Defence counsel was accepted and communicated to the respondent through their letter dt. 2-2-2005 and thereafter one sitting was held on 28-2-2005. On 28-2-2005, documents which were relied on by the authorities were made available to the respondent on 28-2-2005 itself. On the request of the respondent, the enquiry was adjourned to 28-3-2005. On 28-3-2005, the respondent submitted that the enquiry could not be proceeded with since the time granted to complete the enquiry has already been over. Therefore, the time should be extended by three more months from 28-3-2005 for completion of the enquiry. The Tribunal by the impugned order dt. 14-7-2005 dismissed MA No.322/2005 holding that since the period of three months has expired, the proceedings are deemed to have been dropped and there is no ground to grant any further time for implementing the orders. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. This court by order dt. 9-3-2007 suspended the orders passed by the Tribunal in MA No.322/2005. During the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioners proceeded with the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, who has to pass appropriate orders on the said enquiry report, but the same could not be passed in view of the pendency of the writ petition. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Though respondent is served with notice, record did not indicate about his engaging any advocate, but the Registry printed the name of Sri P.S. Ramachandra Murthy, as counsel for the respondent. A Division Bench of this court in WP No.10760/2004 (Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi V. A.S. Ramachandran) set-aside the similar orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the disciplinary authority to conclude the enquiry holding that delay of three months in concluding the enquiry against the respondent would not result in denial of justice. From the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of MA, it evident that the enquiry officer cannot be held responsible for non-conclusion of the enquiry. Since the respondent committed a grave offence, namely, accepting bribe from the passengers for allotment of sleeping berths, the petitioners should have been allowed to proceed with the enquiry and the respondent will have a right to challenge the final order that may be passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, if it is adverse to him. The Tribunal has not considered the explanation offered by the petitioners for extension of time. Therefore, the impugned order dt. 14-7-2005 passed in MA No.332/2005 in OA No.1168/2004 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad is set-aside. MA No.332/2005 is allowed and time granted by the Tribunal by order dt. 25- 11-2004 in OA No.1168/2004 to the respondents therein (petitioners herein) for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, is extended for a period of four weeks (4) from today for passing appropriate orders on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Date:3-2-2010 kmr