THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.17315 of 2010 17-08-2010 BETWEEN; M.Venkateswarlu son of M.Ramaaih ...Petitioner vs. Union of India, rep. by the 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.17315 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioner is a Deputy Chief Inspector employed with the Sout Central Railway and working at Kachiguda Railway Station. He file O.A.No.695 of 2010 before the learned Central Administrative Tribuna Hyderabad Bench (the Tribunal) challenging a charge memo dated 02-12 2008 whereunder three articles of charge are enumerated and th petitioner subjected to a disciplinary inquiry. The O.A was filed after th conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner had also submitted hi memorandum of objections to the report of the inquiry officer, which wa communicated to him. The Tribunal by the order impugned dated 06-07-2010 rejected th petitioner’s plea on the ground that it was premature and no interference a that stage of that matter was called for. The Tribunal observed that if th petitioner feels aggrieved by the eventual order that may be passed o conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, he is at liberty to seek relie after exhausting alternative remedies as available, if so advised. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the sam submissions, which were rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It is contende that the disciplinary proceedings were triggered on account of a complian by a Class-I Officer who could not be accommodated by the petitioner i the matter of allotment of a berth; that since the Class-I officer’s complain had triggered the disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner apprehends bias an prejudgment of his guilt; and therefore it is a fit case for interference by wa of issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition. The above contention is misconceived. The disciplinar proceedings and the conclusions therein are required to contain reason for the conclusion of guilt or otherwise. Such reasons are amenable t oversight either in departmental appeals or before the Tribunal in a appropriate application that may be filed by the petitioner and thereafter b this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution Reasons, as settled in administrative law are the links between th conclusions and the facts on which the conclusions are based. If th reasons are fallacious or perverse or the conclusion of guilt recorded in th disciplinary proceedings is without any supporting evidence or o perverse appreciation of evidence or if the conclusion is otherwise vitiated the disciplinary proceedings would be liable to be invalidated. Merel because the complainant is a Class-I Officer, there is no basis for th petitioner’s apprehension that a conclusion of his guilt in disciplinar proceedings is a foregone conclusion. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the Tribunal dated 06 07-2010 in O.A.No.695 of 2010 is impeccable and warrants n interference. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 17th AUGUST 2010. TSNR