(1.) THE petition has been filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur on 16th May, 2000 in O. A. No. 289 of 1999. The Tribunal has remitted the matter to the Revising Authority to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said order.
(2.) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of the petition indicates that the petitioner was working as Goods Driver in the Railways. He was charge-sheeted with respect to a matter pertaining to an accident. Charge-sheet was issued on 30th October, 1998. On 4-1-1999 without conducting any enquiry punishment of reversion of the applicant from the post of Goods Driver to that of Shunter was imposed. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 20th April, 1999 why punishment imposed should not be enhanced by removing the petitioner from service. It was contended by the petitioner that as a matter of fact no accident had taken place. The facts leading to the lapse were tried to be explained before the Revising/reviewing Authority. The Reviewing Authority vide order dated 29th June, 1999, being dissatisfied with the inquiry proceedings and punishment imposed, appointed an enquiry officer to enquiry into the charges against the petitioner. This order came to be challenged by way of filing the O. A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal took the view that the Revising Authority should have remitted the case to the disciplinary authority to order such further enquiry as it may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal took the view that it is not proper for the Revising Authority to take the role of disciplinary authority for conducting the enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The proper course under the Rules was to remit the case to the disciplinary authority to order the enquiry from the stage immediately after issue of charge-sheet and to pass appropriate fresh order and that could be done only after quashing the order of the disciplinary authority. Since the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the Revising Authority, the Tribunal directed that the representation should be decided in accordance with law within one month.