IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3829 of 2009 Manikant Ranjan s/o Sri Mod Narayan Mandal, r/o A/85, Housing Colony, Lohiya Nagar, P.S. – Kankarbagh, Patna ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the G.M., East Central Railway, Hajipur 2. The G.M.(P), E.C.Railway, Hajipur 3. The D.R.M., E.C.Railway, Danapur 4. The D.R.M. E.C.Railway, Samastipur 5. The Sr.DPO, E.C. Railway, Danapur 6. The Sr.D.C.M., E.C. Railway, Khagaul, Danapur …….. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar, Miss. Ratna Das, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate 4 19/8/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 26th February, 2009, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, has dismissed O.A. No.361 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner against his transfer from Patna Division to Samastipur Division of Railways on administrative grounds. By the same order two other original applications were also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of this petitioner, who is a Group 2 –C employee and at the relevant time posted as Enquiry- cum- Reservation Clerk at Barh, stands on different footing than other applicants who were TTIs. He has specifically challenged the finding/observation made by the learned Tribunal in paragraph -11 of the impugned order, whereunder the Tribunal has recorded its satisfaction by observing that the applicants were found indulging in malpractices and, therefore, they have been rightly transferred to different Divisions of the Railways in consonance with the instructions dated 2.11.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures – 3 & 4 to submit that a draft statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour was served upon the petitioner in the month of February 2005 with a proposal for taking disciplinary action for award of minor punishment and the petitioner replied to the charges vide Annexure -4 in the month of March 2005 and since then the authorities have failed to give any finding against the petitioner that he had indulged in malpractice. Learned counsel for the railways has also 3 drawn our attention to the draft statement of imputation of misconduct for advancing the submission that there has been an allegation of misconduct, hence the petitioner was served the memorandum of charge in the year 2005. However, he could not show any material leading to award of any minor punishment or prima facie findings leading to initiation of any disciplinary proceeding for award of major punishment for the alleged misconduct against the petitioner. The aforesaid facts support the plea of the petitioner that his case stands on different footing than that of the TTIs., against whom, as per Annexure -3, the passenger who was caught with wrong ticket had made incriminating statements. In view of the facts of the case and aforesaid discussions, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Tribunal passed in respect of the petitioner and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for re- considering his case against his transfer on administrative grounds. Writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid 4 extent. It is expected that the Tribunal shall take a final decision as early as possible preferably within four months. It is made clear that till such decision the petitioner, who has been extended the benefit of an interim order of status-quo so far, shall avail that benefit. Neyaz/ (P.K.Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)