Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11559 of 2005 ------- Against the order dated 6.4.2005 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in OA No.150 of 2003. ------- 1. Union of India through the General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati, Assam 2. Divisional Railway Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Katihar 3. Senior Divisional Operating Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Katihar, Bihar ….. Respondents- Petitioners VERSUS 1. Batuk Mandal son of Late Bengali Mandal, resident of village- Madhepura, P.O. & P.S. Pandoul, District Madhubani ….. Applicant- Respondent 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna through its Registrar ….. Respondent ------ For the Petitioners : M/s D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondent : M/s Ansar Alam, Chaudhary Shyam Nandan & Ajay Kumar, Advocates ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Shiva Kirti Singh & Hemant Kumar Srivastava, JJ. Heard the parties. Although this writ petition was linked with two other writ petitions but we find that the facts of this case are quite different and, therefore, it has become necessary to pass a separate judgment in this case. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in OA No.150 of 2003 passed on 6.4.2005 (Annexure-6). By that order, the Tribunal allowed 2 the original application filed by the respondent employee, quashed the orders contained in Annexures A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4 and further declared that subsequent Annexures had become irrelevant. A liberty was granted to the petitioners to proceed against the applicant/ respondent afresh after serving him with proper charge- sheet and then hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in interfering with the matter on the ground that appellate order which confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority did not appear to be a speaking order. It has further been submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the relevant facts which show that on the basis of an earlier charge-sheet and enquiry the concerned employee was awarded a minor punishment for entirely different charge relating to dereliction of duty on his part in not informing the authorities in time that Awadh Assam Express had passed from the concerned Station on a wrong track. It is not in dispute that the concerned employee is a class D employee in Railways and as a Porter he had a very limited role to play and, therefore, he was rightly awarded only a minor punishment in respect of the first charge. 4. According to the petitioners, the second proceeding is on a different charge- sheet and the charge relates to the allegation that the concerned employee in course of an inquiry in respect of the train accident made an incorrect statement before the Enquiry Officer. Copy 3 of the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding has been brought on record through a supplementary affidavit. On going through the enquiry report carefully, it is found that the charges have been found proved only on the basis of statements and admissions made by the respondent employee before the Commission. It appears that before the Commission constituted by the Railways the respondent employee admitted that in an earlier enquiry before the CCRS he had made incorrect statements on pressure of others. 5. Today, we have rendered a common judgment against petitioners in CWJC No.11570 and 12077 of 2005 wherein it has been held that the words ‘any civil proceeding’ occurring in Section 117 of the Railways Act, 1989 or Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 have to be interpreted so as to give them wider meaning and the expression ‘any civil proceeding’ will include a disciplinary proceeding. In that view of the matter, we are not required to decide the correctness or legality of various grounds given by the learned Tribunal for interfering with the order of dismissal. The impugned order of dismissal cannot be sustained in view of provisions in Section 117 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 because on facts it has been found that only material for fastening the charge against the respondent employee was his statements before different Commissions. Those statements cannot be used against him. Hence, the finding of the Enquiry Officer against the 4 respondent employee is found to be without any evidence and on that simple ground the entire proceeding has to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but with a liberty to the petitioners that if so advised, they may proceed afresh against the respondent employee by framing proper charge- sheet and supporting the charges by permissible materials taking care of the provisions in Section 117 of the Railways Act and Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. On the basis of such fresh enquiry, the petitioners will be at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. However, we have been told that the respondent employee has crossed the age of superannuation. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioners must be exercised within a reasonable time. If a fresh proceeding is not commenced within a period of four months in that event, no proceeding shall be initiated against the respondent employee on the ground of his superannuation. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.) Patna High Court The 21st September, 2010 NAFR S.Kumar