SK YASEEN AHMED Vs. SECRETARY RAILWAY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The batch of writ petitions are filed assailing the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad passed in O.A. Nos.1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1511, 1512, 1513 and 1514 of 2003 and O.A. No.619 of 2004. The writ petitioners have challenged the charged memos dated 22.8.2003 issued to them individually by the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioners questioned the respective charge memos before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by filing individual Original Applications. The learned Tribunal dismissed O.A.Nos.1374 of 2003 and Batch by a common order dated 13.7.2004. The learned Tribunal by a separate order dated 22.7.2004 also dismissed O.A. No.619 of 2004 on the ground that the same was connected case to O.A. No.1374 of 2003 and Batch.

(2.) Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, leading to filing of these writ petitions are : The petitioners in all these writ petitions are railway employees. There is a society called South Central Railway Employees Credit Society Limited, Secunderabad, originally established in 1923 and registered under A.P. Co-operative Societies Act No.7 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Society). Subsequently, the said Society came to be brought under the provisions of Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, presently known as Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as MSCSA) since the operations of the Society are spread over more than one State like Karnataka, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The writ petitioners were elected as Directors of the Society in the year 1999. Their term of office expired on 30.6.2002. The disciplinary authority had issued individual charge memos on 10.5.2004 to the writ petitioners alleging certain irregularities in appointing 27 candidates (Group-C 12 and Group-D 15) into the service of the Society in exercise of powers as Directors. The writ petitioners submitted representations raising jurisdictional aspect to issue charge memos for their actions as Directors of the Society, the functions of which are governed by the provisions of MSCSA. The disciplinary authority rejected their objections and appointed an Enquiry Officer. Assailing the order of the disciplinary authority, the writ petitioners filed O.As before the Tribunal to call for the records relating to the charge memos and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently to restrain the disciplinary authority from taking any action in pursuance of the charge memos.