IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28575 of 2005(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.P. KESAVA PANICKER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, NOW WORKING AS STATION MASTER GRADE-II, WADAKANCHERI RAILWAY STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT,RESIDING AT "THUSHARAM" KAZCHA PARAMBU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN CHENNAI-3. 2. CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, CHENNAI. 3. THE AREA MANAGER (INQUIRY OFFICER), OFFICE OF THE AREA MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER DT.15.9.99. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.9.4.2001. P3: .DO. DT.7.9.2001. P4: .DO. DT.21.2.2003. P5: TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF THE SOLE WITNESS RECORDED ON 4.8.2000. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. 286/2003, DT.8.8.2005. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.28.9.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.28575 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for letting a train go in the opposite direction. The petitioner as Cabin Master was found guilty for allowing movement of the train from Ernakulam South Station to Kottayam instead of the actual destination of Shoranur. In the challenge against the order imposing punishment, the CAT noticed that evidence was not taken and enquiry about the role of others was not proper. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order imposing punishment and directed denovo enquiry. The petitioner has filed this W.P. challenging the said order of the Tribunal on the main ground that enquiry is ordered only against the petitioner and not against others who are involved. Even though we find some force in the contention of the petitioner in as much as Tribunal has not expressly authorised disciplinary action against other persons, if found involved in fresh enquiry, we do not find any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order in as much as Tribunal has only ordered fresh enquiry. However, we make it clear that since the movement of the 2 train is controlled by action of several persons in tandem, all those who are found involved should be proceeded against. In fact the question to be considered is as to whose mistake led to the movement of the train in the wrong direction. The person who is guilty of it deserves to be punished. Besides this, the Railway should consider whether any other person could have corrected it and if that is not done, such person also should be punished. The purpose of entrusting a job in the joint hands of several operational staff is to ensure that mistake by one is corrected by other so that accident does not take place. In the circumstances, the enquiry officer should identify the persons responsible including the petitioner and proceed against each and everyone involved. We, therefore, direct the enquiry officer to conduct enquiry as above after identifying the persons involved in the incident and proceed against the petitioner and any other person, if found involved in the enquiry and complete the proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Disciplinary action according to Rules should be taken even against the retired persons. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms