THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.22168 OF 2009 Dt.15.10.2009 Between: A.Srinivas .. Petitioner And The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.22168 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.692 of 2009 is the petitioner herein. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A., seeking the relief as follows: “In view of the facts mentioned in para 4 above, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for records and set aside the proceedings of the Chief Commercial Manager vide proceedings No.P.86/D&A/GNT/AS/98/ 2008, dated 17.10.2008, served on 03.05.2009 to the extent of directing the disciplinary authority to conduct de-novo enquiry against the applicant, consequently set aside the proceedings of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, disciplinary authority, No.GNT/Z/DAR/5/81/AS/06-vol-II, dated 23.03.2009 served on the applicant on 03.05.2009 by declaring them as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and to grant all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, allowances and promotion etc., as due from time to time.” The only contention that was raised and which was dealt with by the Tribunal in its impugned order was, competency of revisional authority to order fresh enquiry by new enquiry officer. The punishment imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority was set aside by the revisional authority under the order dated 17.10.2008, but by the same order the revisional authority appointed a new enquiry officer to start disciplinary proceedings from the stage of preliminary enquiry onwards. The petitioner is aggrieved only to the extent of the said part of the order and had approached the Tribunal by contending that the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to appoint a new enquiry officer. The Tribunal had considered the said contention and rejected the O.A. holding that when the revisional authority has power to exercise all powers under Rule 25(5) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, it cannot be said that it could not have appointed a new enquiry officer. The said order is questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority has exercised suo motu powers and while it has set aside the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings, it has ordered de-novo enquiry particularly from the very standpoint of the contention of the petitioner that the earlier enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner and there was non-adherence of the procedure laid down for inquiries. The said contention was accepted by the revisional authority and while setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority had consequently appointed a new enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry afresh. We are unable to accept the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is only questioning that part of the order of the revisional authority, which according to him is not justified, while he is taking the benefit of the other part of the very same order. The appellate or the revisional authority has all the powers to confirm, reverse or modify the order of the primaryauthority and the said power includes all the ancillary powers including the power to appoint enquiry officer. The revisional authority therefore is only exercising a further jurisdiction over the order of the disciplinary authority and it cannot be said that the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to appoint enquiry officer. The said contention therefore is not sustainable and was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. In view of the same, the writ petition is totally devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 15.10.2009 kpr