M RAJAKUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, while was working as Section Engineer/Works under the control of the Deputy Chief Engineer/Gauge Conversion, Triuchirapalli was the Inspector of works in charge of gauge conversion works during the period 1995-98 and he was in charge of the earth work for forming bank/cutting for widening of the existing Meter Gauge conversion between Villupuram-Ariyalur under the contract agreement No.45/CN/95, dated 3.5.1995 in the Chennai Beach-Tiruchirapalli Gauge Conversion Project. While so, on certain alleged irregularities of manipulating and recasting the initial level books and failure to take corrective steps/action, even after knowing that the initial ground levels were tampered and is at variance with the true initial ground levels, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 on 2.6.2004.

(2.) After the issue of the charge sheet, the petitioner has requested the Disciplinary Authority to permit him to inspect the original documents kept under the custody of vigilance department, based on which the charges were proposed to be sustained. While according to the respondents/Administration, the request of the petitioner was considered and the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer/Engineer also directed him to peruse the relied upon documents as per Annexures III and IV of the charge memorandum and the petitioner also perused all the relied upon documents on 7.9.2004, on the part of the petitioner, it has been contended that he has addressed the Enquiry Officer by his letter dated 6.3.2006, about his predicament in attending the enquiry without perusing the original documents and the non-supply of relevant documents, but, however, the enquiry officer had advised him to attend the enquiry by 17.4.2006 and the documents had neither been furnished to him nor he had been permitted to peruse the documents. On such grounds, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.883 of 2006 before the first respondent/Tribunal, praying for a direction to supply the documents and permit him to peruse the original documents mentioned in the charge memo. dated 2.6.2004 and then proceed with the enquiry. The Tribunal, by the order dated 4.1.2007, has directed the respondents to furnish the copies of the items 1 and 4 of the enclosure III and permit the applicant to peruse the rest of the documents before proceedings further to the inquiry.

(3.) Thereupon, complaining that the said order of the Tribunal has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed Contempt Application No.21 of 2007 before the Tribunal. Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering all the facts and circumstances has closed the said Contempt Application. In this process, the Tribunal has recorded its findings as follows: