IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 10737 OF 2010(S) -------------------------- {OA.76/2009 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER, TRANSPORTATION BRANCH, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. 2. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-3. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- N.V.SALEEM, S.NO.J/T 1822, SENIOR TRAIN CLERK, SOUTHERN RAILWAY PANAMBUR, PALGHAT DIVISION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10737 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The respondent, Railway servant was to re-join duty, after appropriate clearance from the Medical Board. On the allegation that he did not appear before the Medical Officers of the Railways as required, certain disciplinary proceedings were proposed against him. Charge sheets were issued one after another, withdrawing the immediately preceding charge sheet on some or the other technical ground. This exercise from 2005 has ultimately been given a closure by the Tribunal as per the impugned order issued in August, 2009. The gravity of the accusation against the officer was only in relation to his failure to present himself before the Railway Doctors in terms of the directions. For that, he had to face proceedings under different charge sheets for W.P.(C).No.10737 of 2010 :: 2 :: the last more than 3 to 4 years. We do not find any illegality or injustice in the action of the Tribunal warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution in favour of the establishment. 2. We think that what would have irked the first writ petitioner, leading to the institution of the writ petition could be certain observations of the Tribunal in paragraph 14 of the impugned order which tends to indicate that the said officer lacked sufficient exposure and expertise in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and he should have obtained proper legal advise from the Law Department of the Railways. We do not see that those observations of the learned Tribunal could be treated as remarks, much less, any adverse remarks. We are prompted to think that such observations by the Tribunal are to be treated only as merely advisory, that too coming from the Administrative Tribunal constituted under W.P.(C).No.10737 of 2010 :: 3 :: the Administrative Tribunal's Act and such words of advise should be taken by the officers in good spirit. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.