IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3832 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.26/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER ------------------- B.GOPINATH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, CATERING SUPERVISOR GRADE-III, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RESIDING AT CHENNAMPALLIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR. MARTIN G.THOTTAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600 003. 2. CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600 003. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. BY ADV. C. S. DIAS, STANDING COUNSEL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. (CAT) No. 3832 Of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 24th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is before us in the 3rd round of litigation, challenging the orders of the CAT in O.A. No. 26 of 2010 dated 30.08.2011. The CAT, after referring to the earlier directions of the High Court, opined that, the CAT has proceeded to pass the following order, after adverting to what happened in the earlier rounds of litigation and what was the exact direction given by the High Court in earlier proceedings. After noticing that the disciplinary authority, though was entitled to impose harsher punishment, but, however, ought to have followed the directions of the High Court on earlier occasion, therefore keeping open the entire issues, remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to consider the matter afresh, as observed by the High Court on earlier occasion, both with regard to the earlier punishments or penalties imposed against the appellant i.e. past history and also the fact that what is the nature of the present misconduct or irregularity committed by the appellant. O.P.(CAT) No. 3832 of 2011 :2: 3. As a matter of fact, we do not find any prejudice being caused to the petitioner with the orders of the CAT. On other hand, he will also have an opportunity to plead before the disciplinary authority, seeking a lenient punishment to be imposed. 4. In that view of that matter, we are of the opinion that nothing remains for us to consider. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. We also make it clear that the disciplinary authority is at liberty to proceed with the matter and pass orders without being influenced by any of the observations made either by the CAT or this Court. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge