SUKHDEV SINGH KARKHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant assailing the issuance of memorandum of charge -sheet dated 26.06.2012 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1968) and against the alleged misinterpretation of Rule 3 of Railway Servant (Conduct) Rules.

(2.) THE applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: - -

(3.) THE respondents have filed a short reply followed by counter affidavit, both containing nearly the same substance. The respondents have submitted that ongoing disciplinary proceedings being quasi judicial in nature and are not to be interfered with at this stage and should be allowed to attain finality as per the procedures laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Upendra Singh, : (1994) 3 SCC 357, which is further reiterated in the case of Dr. Sanat Kumar Patodi v. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 829/2009) decided on 9.7.2013 by Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal and in case of Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha : (2012) 11 SCC 565. The respondents have further stated that the applicant submitted his statement of defence vide communication dated 27.09.2012 denying the charges. The disciplinary authority having perused the statement of defence, decided to remit the charges to inquiry officer in accordance with Rule 9(9) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 wherein due opportunity was to be provided to the applicant to defend his case. Therefore, quashing of charge -sheet at this stage would amount to miscarriage of justice and would stand in total contradiction of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If some documents have not been provided, the appropriate forum where they should be sought is under sub -rule (15) to (17) of the Rule 19 of Rules, 1968 and any demand for quashing of the proceedings on grounds of non -supply at this stage is grossly premature. The respondents submit that the applicant had accepted that Railway Board had not given any relaxation for SC/ST candidates in the selection for 16 -2/3% quota but to avoid court cases and to expedite the selection, relaxation was given.