^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 4744 of 2000 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, ChiefJusttee & Hon'bte Shri D.R-Deshmukh, J. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS RESR3NDENTS: 1. Union of India, Through the Divisional Railway Manager.Soulh Eastem Raitway, Bifaspur (M.P.) 2. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, South Eastern Raihray, Bitaspur(M.P.) Versus 1. Navat Kishore, Loco Driyer. 0?etd), Purani Basti, Kalyanpur Road (Near Safyam Video), P.0. Sahdol, Distt.Sahdol (M.P.) 2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Caravas buMing, near Railway Statfon, Jabafpur. W.P.No. 638 of 2001 1. Unton of India, Through the Dhrisional Railway Manager, Soutti Eastern Raihray, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. DMsional Mechanical Engineer, South Eastern Raihyay, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1 .-> R.K.Mishra, S/o late M.P.Mishra, Loco Drive, Sahdol(M.P.) 2. Centtal Admlnistrative Tribunal, Caravas building, near Raitway Station, Jabalpur. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Sft Counsel for Rallways with Shrt N.K.Shrivastava, Advocate Shri Sanjay Verma. teamedCounsel for respondent No.1 <jn both the writ petitions) ORALORDER (Passed on 08.09.200^ The fotlowing oral order of the Court was passed by S. R. NAYAK, C.J. The contesting private responcfent No.1 in each of these wnt petitions are in the service of Raihrays as drivers. While woridng as locb ,,.A.,,l..l-l. ..;iBun,u>N8UJIU!"-t drivers they were served with charge sheet dated 13.11 .1997 alleging at on 18.8.1997 white working as drivers they were driving the goods train more than the prescribed speed of 10 KM. per hour on the cross over point and due to this high speed, the frain was derailed resulfing in deraflment ofthree wagons. The second petffioner, herein, namely Senior Divisional Mechanical Manager. South Eastem Raihyay, who is the disciplinary authority under the conduct regulafions, not being satisfied witti the explanation offered by the delinquent officials, ordered conduct of departmental enquiry agalnst the respondents No.1 in each ofthese cases by appointing Shri R.P.Singh as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, having conducted the enquiry, submitted his report recording a finding that the disciplinary authority has failed to prove that at the time of accident, the delinquent drivers were drivfng the goods train at a speed more than 10 KM. per hour. However, the disciplinary authority taking into account the finding recorded by tfie technical team, which conducted speed test, held the delinquent officials guilty of misconduct as alleged against them and on that basis, it has imposed perialty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of twp years with cumulafive eflect as disciplinary measure. The appeal preferred by the delinquent officiats within the administratfon of Railways went in vain. That led to delinquent (rfficiats prefem'ng Original Application tfo. 48 of 1999 and Original Application No.264 of 1^9 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, for short Uie Trtbunat. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the delinquents, it was contended that in tfie report of the technical staff, which conducted the investigation into the cause of accident, It was held that the delinquents did not drive the train at a speed more than 10 KM. per hour, and therefore, holding the.delinquents guiHy of misconduct or imposing penalfy was unjusU'fied and illegal. Of couree, in additton to ttiat ^ 3 K, ground, certain other grounds were also ui^ed with regard to conduct of enquiry and denial of opportunity to (tefend themsehres against ttie charge sheet. On the other hand, Uie applicaSons were opposed by the petitioners herein by contending ftat the charged levetled against the delinquent oTRcials have been satisfactorily proved-and the finding recorded by the technical staff, which conducted the speed test, would show ttiat the frain was driven at a speed more than 10 KM. per hour. The Tribunal, having considered ttie rival contentions of the parties, held that the finding recorded by <he technical staff after conducting speed test is not acceptabte for the reason at by the fime such test was conducted, there were Improvements in the situations in fte sense ftat tte signal of cross over was changed and signwas repaired at the time of triat. What weighed wlth the Tribunal not to give much importance to the fimfing recorded by ttie technical staff, which conducted speed test after the aforesaid improvements and changfng, is the fact that intsr-technicat staff. immediately after the accident before initiation of Uie departmental enquiry ( had conducted a thorough investigation into the cause of <he accident and had recorded the finding <hat ttie derailment was due to engineering defect. What is recorded in that report is a futty supported in the course of regular enquiry also by the vritn,esses of the disciplinary authority ttiemselves. The Tribunal in para 5.3 of the order has pointed outthat the wtnesses of tfie disciplinary aufiiority in fteir deposifions have stated ttiat ttiere have been number of derailments over the cross over point in questlon in the past also and according to em, these accidente have taken place because of defecUve tracks. The reason given by the Tribunal not to give much importance to tfte flndjng recorded by fte technical sfaff, which conducted the speed test afler a considerabte tapse of fime and after fte changes brought about, as noted above/ > condemned i •^f 4 as perverse. If that report is eschewed, what remains on the file would fully support that the defence of the delinquent officials that the accident had taken place notdue to high speed in driving the train butdue to engineering/technical defects in the tracks. s" 2. It is needless to state Uiat it is the onus of the disciplinary authority to satisfactorily establish the charge framed against the delinquenteby adduclng substantive acceptabte legal evidence. As pointed out supra, thedisciplinary authority has utteriy failed to bring home the charge of misconduct alleged against the delinquent officials toy adducing substanUve, satisfactory and acceptable evidence. In that view of the matter, we cannot takeany exceptlon to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. lArr'i^'ni. L) 3. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and thsy are accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justfce Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge