NARINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.72 of 2005 dated 15-2-2005, and the proceedings of the Railway Board dated 24-9-2002, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 17-3-2004, are sought to be quashed.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a post graduate in Engineering (Structures) from Punjab University, consequent upon his selection by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at the Combined Engineering Services Examination, came to be appointed to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers in 1988 and was promoted to the Junior Administrative Cadre in the month of January, 1999. He was confirmed in the said cadre during April 2004 along with the 1992 batch of IRSE officers. He was superseded by his 1988 batchmates and his juniors from the 1989,1990 and 1991 batches, in view of the impugned orderof punishment. While working as a Divisional Engineer, (gauge conversion), Hubli, Karnataka State, in the year 1995, a stretch of 90 kilometres of existing meter gauge, between Hubli -Londa railway stations, was taken up for conversion into broad gauge. Railway traffic had to be stopped in the section and since the broad gauge conversion was sought to be achieved in record time, efforts were made by the railway administration, to achieve the said object, by attending to the works simultaneously from both ends. The petitioner, as a Divisional Engineer, is said to have regularly camped at the site attending to various duties being performed almost round the clock. The entire work is said to have been broken into 19 reaches and important works entrusted to qualified and competent engineering contractors, whose work and performance was monitored and supervised and guided by a team of railway officials including the petitioner. Petitionerwould submit that gauge conversion work was completed in a record time of 30 days and this achievement was appreciated in all quarters. On suspicion that the local railway administration had paid various contractors monies, in excess of their entitlement, the Vigilance branch of the South Central Railway asked the petitioner on 14-6-1996 to explain four items. The petitioner is said to have drawn up a detailed note in reply thereto on 6-7-1996. Not being satisfied, a memorandum of charge was drawn by the General Manager, South Central Railway, vide proceedings dated 25-6-1996. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as under:

(3.) The imputations of charge were detailed in Annexure-ll to the charge memo. Four documents were listed in Annexure-lll as the basis and supporting evidence for sustaining the charges. No witnesses were cited to establish the charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the charges. The General Manager appointed Sri C.N. Sastry, a former Chief Mechanical Engineer of the South Central Railway, as the enquiry officer. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings which were held on various dates and places including at Hubli. While the prosecution did not examine any witnesses, the petitioner examined 11 witnesses in his defence, all of whom belonged to the Civil Engineering Department of the South Central Railway and had attended works connected with broad gauge conversion carried out between Hubli -Londa sections. The petitioner filed several documents. Several records were summoned and marked on behalf of the defence. The enquiry officerfinalized his report and recorded a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the allegations levelled against him. The enquiry officer held that the executing team, attending the broad gauge conversion work, at Hubli-Londa, had thoroughly complied with the safety standards and norms prescribed in various railway manuals and circulars and that the executing team was not guilty of misdemeanour.