N.V. KRISHNAN KUTTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal') dated 25.05.2005 in O.A. No. 633 of 2004, by which the Tribunal restrained the Opposite Parties to proceed with fresh inquiry but permitted to conclude the earlier inquiry from the point it stood vitiated for non -consideration of objections filed by the Petitioner against the inquiry report.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner -employee was served with charge -sheet dated 25th September, 1998 (Annex. -1) that he was responsible for non - inspection and supervision of the maintenance of the Railway Track which ultimately led to derailment of the Goods Train on 4.6.1998. Petitioner -employee replied to the said charge -sheet and as the employer was not satisfied with the same, the Inquiry Officer was appointed. During the pendency of the said Inquiry the Petitioner -employee filed O.A. No. 180 of 1999 seeking various reliefs, namely, Inquiry Officer be changed; competent authority may also be changed; he should be furnished all material documents used in the inquiry against him; and he should be permitted to examine the witnesses. During the pendency of the said application, an interim order was passed that inquiry proceedings be completed but no final order be passed without leave of the Court. The inquiry was completed and the Petitioner -employee was served with the inquiry report on 30.4.1999 and he was asked to file objections within 10 days against the same. He did not submit any reply. The matter was listed for hearing before the Tribunal. It was appraised of all subsequent developments and the Tribunal vide Judgment and Order Dated 19.6.2000 disposed of the said Application issuing directions that Petitioner/delinquent would submit his objections to the inquiry report and the authority would take final decision after considering the same. However, in case the decision was taken to impose any punishment, the delinquent would be free to approach the Tribunal. In pursuance thereof, Petitioner/delinquent submitted the objections to the inquiry report. Punishment Order Dated 30.01.2001 (Annex. -4) was passed by the competent authority imposing the punishment of reduction in rank to next lower grade with cumulative effective. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner -employee by filing O.A. No. 104 of 2001 on the grounds that (1) the authority which passed the order of punishment was not competent to do so, (2) the delinquent was not permitted to examine the documents, (3) the witnesses to be relied upon by the delinquent were not summoned, (4) the findings of facts recorded by the inquiry officer were based on no evidence and (5) penalty so imposed was disproportionate to the delinquency. The aforesaid Application was contested by the Opposite Party -employer. However, the Tribunal opined that two relevant issues were involved there, that as to whether the penalty was harsh or disproportionate to the delinquency and as to whether order of punishment could be a non -speaking one. After considering all pros and cons, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that impugned Order Dated 30.01.2001 and the consequential letter dated 11.01.2001 were liable to be quashed as the reply submitted by the delinquent -employee on 7.7.2000 to the inquiry report had not been considered and the said impugned Order Dated 30.01.2001 and Order Dated 11.1.2001 were quashed. Subsequent thereto, a fresh inquiry on the same charges was initiated appointing a new Inquiring Officer vide Order Dated 2.12.2002, which was challenged by the delinquent -employee by filing O.A. No. 633 of 2004 which has been decided by the Tribunal vide impugned Judgment and order holding that second inquiry was not permissible. However, there was no bar for the employer to recommence the earlier inquiry from the point it stood vitiated and conclude the same by taking into consideration the reply/objections submitted by the delinquent/employee. Hence this Writ Petition.

(3.) ON the contrary it has submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties employer that as the punishment was set aside on a technical ground, there could be no prohibition even to hold a fresh inquiry. The employer is also competent to take up the inquiry from the point it stood vitiated and conclude the same in accordance with law as per the directions given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.