THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.16896 of 2010 04-08-2010 BETWEEN; L.R.Sundar son of Late L.R.Ramachandran ...Petitioner vs. The Additional General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.16896 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the learned Centra Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (the Tribunal) dated 02-02 2009 in R.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.A.No.418 of 2006 whereby the revisio application (directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 30-12-2008 i O.A.No.418 of 2006) was dismissed in circulation on the ground that ther was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of th substantive order dated 30-12-2008 in the O.A. The challenge is also t the substantive order dated 30-12-2008 in O.A.No.418 of 2006 filed by th petitioner herein challenging the order of the disciplinary authority date 01-12-2004 inflicting on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service; the order of the appellate authority dated 10-02-2005 modifyin the order of removal to one of compulsory retirement; and the order of th revising authority dated 05-07-2005 (further modifying the order of th disciplinary authority as modified by the appellate authority), inflicting th punishment of reduction to the lower of post of Junior Shroff in Cash an Pay Office fixing his pay at the minimum of Rs.3,050/- for a period of fiv years with adverse effect on both pay and seniority. It requires to be noticed that in the O.A. the petitioner did no implead the Railways though he asserted a grievance pursuant t disciplinary proceedings while in the service of the Railways. Th petitioner merely impleaded the Additional General Manager, Sout Central Railway (SCR), the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Office (WST) SCR and the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Cash and Pay) SCR as the respondents. Since the petitioner was asserting a grievanc pertaining to the service in the Railways, he was required to implead th Railways, as a necessary and proper party. Impleading officers of th Railways does not fulfil the requirement of impleading the proper an necessary parties. Without the Railways impleaded as a party responden the O.A cannot be maintained, since the petitioner does not claim persona employment with any of the respondents impleaded. In the circumstances O.A should have been dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable Instead the Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate upon the dispute and passe the impugned order. Aggrieved whereby, the petitioner is before this cou in this writ petition. In the circumstances above, the order dated 02-02-2009 i R.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.A.418 of 2006 and the order dated 30-12-200 rejecting O.A.No.418 of 2006 are unsustainable and accordingly quashed As the O.A. itself was not maintainable, as structured the O.A also stand dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty however to initiate proceedings d novo, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 4th AUGUST 2010. TSNR