VIRESH TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer Grade-II in Coach Repair Work Shop, Bhopal, Central Railway, he was issued a charge sheet dated March 11, 2000, The charge was that on February 19, 2000 at about 11 A.M. he assaulted the Private Security Supervisor (R.K. Chandel) who was on duty, thereby causing grievous injuries. An enquiry was held. On behalf of the Disciplinary Authority five witnesses were examined, namely, Udayaveer Singh Badhoria, Pankaj Shnvastava, Anupam Shrivastava, R.K. Jaiswal and Sulekh Yadav. The said witnesses were permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to let in his evidence. He examined two witnesses, but did not choose to give evidence himself. Therefore, on January 20, 2001, the Inquiry Officer granted ten days time to the petitioner to file his defence brief explaining his stand. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his defence brief. After considering the evidence and the defence brief, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the report to the petitioner and gave him opportunity to show cause in the matter. Petitioner, accordingly, submitted his explanation dated February 17, 2001. After considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated February 24, 2001, accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and imposing the punishment of' removal from service.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before Appellate Authority (third respondent) and the Appellate Authority, dismissed the appeal by order dated June 6, 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the Chief Work Shop Engineer, Mumbai on July 2, 2001. The Revisional Authority allowed the revision petition in part by order, dated November 15, 2001. The Revisional Authority found that the charge against the petitioner that was proved was very grave in nature and extremely detrimental to conducive working atmosphere. He was also of the view that the penalty of removal was justified. However, purely on humanitarian grounds he reduced the penalty as follows:

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 816/2002 for quashing the order dated November 15, 2001 passed by the Revisional Authority to the extent it prejudiced him and also for quashing orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. He also sought a declaration that he had not committed any misconduct and that there was violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. The Tribunal by order dated July 6, 2004 considered the matter exhaustively and rejected the petition. The said order of the Tribunal is challenged in this petition.