DASHRATHI NAYAK Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench dated June 30, 1999 in O. A. No. 739 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the petitioners order of removal from service was maintained. The petitioner was appointed as Engine Cleaner (E. C.) on June 30, 1976 in the LOCO Department under South Eastern Railway, Khurda Road Division. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Driver C in 1990. It is alleged by the petitioner that throughout his career he did no work which at any point of time amounted to carelessness and recklessness. The Goods Train in which he was working as driver was derailed on June 3, 1991. After such rail accident the petitioner was placed under suspension. No sooner did the accident take place a high-power fact-finding body visited the spot and submitted their report on June 12, 1991. Certain charges were framed against the petitioner and in reply to the article of charges, he claimed for supplying of a copy of fact-finding report, so that he would be in a position to submit a comprehensive statement of defence. But the Disciplinary Authority failed to supply the same, rather replied to the petitioner that the latter was not entitled to receive copy of the fact-finding report. Thereafter witnesses have been examined before the Enquiring Officer by both parties and the Enquiring Officer in his report had suggested to impose major punishment on the petitioner. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority communicated the petitioner asking him to show-cause as to why he shall not be removed from service. Pursuant to the letter issued by the Disciplinary Authority, he submitted his show-cause by stating that there is no exceptional ground for imposing drastic punishment of removal and he craved for a lesser punishment. But all his request did not evoke any response from the disciplinary authority and, accordingly, they removed the petitioner from service. After such removal he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which also did yield no better result. Thereafter he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench challenging the order of removal. Learned Tribunal agreeing with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioners application.

(2.) At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued with vehemence that petitioner was highly prejudiced for having not supplied with the copy of fact-finding report. Had such report been supplied to the delinquent, he could have answered the charge in a better manner. For such non-supply it has resulted in miscarriage of justice and he was denied proper opportunity of defending himself before the Enquiring Authority due to non-supply of the document. He has also taken us through the written statement of defence wherein the delinquent has clearly mentioned that:

(3.) In the above circumstances, it is to be considered whether such document comprising the fact-finding report should have been supplied by the Department to the delinquent officer or not. Even if the articles of charges are not based on such document, the charges have been framed on account of derailment of MD/JNC Pilot Ex JNC at Talcher on June 3, 1991 and after such derailment a High Power Committee visited the spot and submitted their report to their higher authority as to the cause of the accident, therefore, such report is necessary to be supplied to the delinquent.