IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3859 of 2011 Dilip Mehta, S/o Late Ram Das Mehta, Booking Clerk, N.R. Cell, office of the D.R.M. E.C. Railway, Danapur ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Division, E.C. Railway, Danapur 3. The Senior D.C.M., E.C. Railway, Danapur 4. The Assistant Commercial Manager, E.C. Railway, Danapur 5. The Senior D.P.O., E.C. Railway, Danapur ...... Respondents ---------------------------------- 4 14-09-2011 Heard the parties. An attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the enquiry report as well as order of punishment contained in annexure-1 on merits by raising issues of alleged violation of paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual. He showed us that the decoy witness has admitted that he has acted as a decoy in some other trap cases also. We have not been shown violation of any other provisions except a part of paragraph 704 of the manual indicated above. However, we are not persuaded to enter into merits of the case of the petitioner in view of 2nd contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that his appeal under Rule 22 of Railway Servant (D & A) 2 Rules, 1968 has not been disposed of by the Senior DCM, Danapur on merits. It is apparent that the appellate authority by order dated 23-9-2008 exercised powers in terms of Rule 25 of the aforesaid Rules as reviewing authority and enhanced initial punishment by a speaking order. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna by part of the order under challenge interfered with the order dated 23-9-2008 and has set aside the same on the ground that Senior DCM, Danapur was not the reviewing authority in terms of Rule 25. That part of the order which was in favour of the petitioner has not been challenged by the Railway. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in the eyes of law the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 22 of the Rules is still pending and requires to be disposed of by the appellate authority in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the impugned 3 order of Tribunal is set aside in part and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law. It is expected that the appellate authority shall consider the grounds raised by the petitioner, at least, in brief and dispose of the same at an early date, preferably, within two months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)