DIPAK GOSWAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dipak Goswami has filed this petition for issuance a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet dated 30.8.2012; enquiry report dated 25.01.2013; order of penalty dated 29/30.04.2013; appellate order dated 9.12.2013; order passed by the Reviewing Authority dated 5.5.2014 and order dated 24.8.2016 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal while dealing with OA No.040/00346/2014 placed on record as Annexure-5.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset pointed out that in regard to an incident that took placed on 15.6.2012 in Borahu 'BRHU' Railway Station (Lumding Railway Division) wherein 15959 Up Kamrup Express entered line No.3 instead of line No.2 where Brake Van of Up Amoni Goods train was standing and it was only due to application of brake by the Loco Pilot that the collision could be averted; four persons were proceeded against on similar, rather identical charges. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that one of the said persons namely, Anupam Nag, who was serving in the capacity of Electrician Technician-I, WP(C) 980/2016 was filed and has been allowed vide judgment dated 29.1.2019. It has been pleaded that the accusations against the petitioner and Anupam Nag are similar. Article of charges framed against the two were similar. The material invoked for punishing the petitioner and Anupam Nag was similar. Identical procedure was followed in the Departmental Proceedings. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was serving as Electrical Technician III/SIG/GHY and was implicated merely because he was on duty, along with others, at the given point of time. It has been pleaded that although it has been concluded that the signal was tampered with, however, no positive evidence of tampering could be found. It has been argued that the petitioner and his co-associates were awarded punishment only because they happened to be on duty at the point in time when the incident took place. It has further been argued that the relevant rules were not followed, rather old rules were invoked which were not in vogue.

(3.) Be that as it may, it is the admitted position that the case of Anupam Nag, writ petitioner in WP(C) 980/2016 is similar to the case of the petitioner. It further appears to be the case that decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 980/2016 titled Anupam Nag vs. Union of India and 5 others (supra) has not been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.