(1.) Heard Mr. Anil Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. Ram Balak Mahto for the respondent. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. no. 172 of 2005 (Shambhu Sah versus The Union of India & Ors), whereby the original application preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed with certain directions for payment of salary with interest, promotions, etc.
(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The Chief Works Manager, Jamalpur Workshop(hereinafter referred to as CWM), was on a round of inspection of the factory, described in the charge as ,,Shop. The date of inspection is not stated throughout the proceedings. The respondent was posted in the shop as Sectional Engineer. The CWM put questions to him about the manufacturing process, and he was unable to answer any question at all. This led to framing of charge in terms of rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and was conveyed to the respondent alongwith covering letter dated 24.5.2004(Annexure-1 to the respondents counter affidavit here). The respondent submitted his explanation dated 1.6.2004 (Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit), taking the plea that he is an office bearer of the trade union, and was instrumental in filing O.A. no. 343 of 2004 before the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal against the Railway administration, challenging merger of 15 trades. As to the merits of the charges, he stated that "the charge is vague, not explicit and even it does not reflect the date when CWM visited the shop and found me not having the details of the different items manufactured in the shop." He also stated that he was responsible only to the particular job entrusted to him in his shop.
(3.) The learned inquiry officer-cum- disciplinary authority (i.e. the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer), recorded the following finding: