IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8635 of 2010 Vijay Kumar Pandey S/o Late Asheshwar Pandey, R/o village- Patahi Lahladpur, P.O. Patahi, District Muzaffarpur had been working as Fittar Khalasi, presently working as Senior Khalasi Under Section Engineer of Works (Line), E.C.Railway, Muzaffarpur. --- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager, E.C. Railway Hajipur. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering),E.C. Railway, Sonepur, District-Saran. 3. The A.E.E. No. E.C.Railway, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (South), Muzaffarpur. 5. The Senior S.E.(Works), E.C.Railway, Muzaffarpur. ---- Respondents. ----------- 02. 18.05.2010 Heard Mr. M.K.Manoj for the petitioner, and Mr. Madhu Prasun for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure-9), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A.No. 241 of 2003 (Vijay Kumar Pandey Vrs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner is a class IV employee in the Indian Railways. He was assigned duties on two dates, namely, 05.06.2002, and 27.06.2002, which he had allegedly refused to carry out leading to show- cause notice dated 27.06.2002. On a full consideration of the materials, learned disciplinary authority rejected the same by his order dated 02.09.2002 (Annexure-4), whereby punishment of lower pay scale 2 for a period of 35 months with non-cumulative effect was inflicted on him. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring departmental appeal which has been rejected by order dated 20.12.2002 (Annexure-8), leading to the present O.A. No. 241 of 2003. The same has been rejected by the said order dated 30.10.2009. 3. While assailing the validity of the action of the learned authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is a mala fide approach of the respondent authorities, in as much as the concerned authority, a muslim gentlemen, had directed the petitioner to chop off several over- hanging branches of a pipal tree, which he had declined for the obvious reason. He next submits that the impugned action is in violation of the basic principles of natural justice. Nobody can be a judge in his own cause. In his submission, the learned disciplinary authority had directed the petitioner to chop off the branches of the pipal tree, had issued show-cause notice to him, considered the cause shown by him, and inflicted the impugned punishment. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner’s defence has been considered by the learned authorities as well as the learned Tribunal, and has been rejected. That being an issue of fact, we are not inclined to take a different view. It appears that the view taken by them is a possible view and, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, we do not find any justification to take a different view. 3 5. The second aspect of the matter also deserves consideration. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua. No person can be a judge in his own case. This principle of law was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Paswan Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2001(2) PLJR 717. It has been held therein that this principle of law admits of certain exceptions. The departmental proceeding is one such exception where this principle is not attracted. Paragraph nos. 19 and 21 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:- “19 The third exception relates to the category of departmental proceedings where the disciplinary authority is the judge in his own cause. He takes the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, to frame charges, to appoint enquiry officer or enquire himself, takes the decisions on the enquiry report, and passes the final order. Reference may be made to the judgments reported in AIR 1956 Cal. 662 ( Choudhary vs. Union of India), and AIR 1967 M.P. 81 (Ramesh Chandra vs. Union). 20. ……….. 21. The present case is thus covered by the third exception stated above.” 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Sym (S.K.Katriar,J) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)