UNION OF INDIA (UOI) THROUGH SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) THROUGH CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH AT RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed on behalf of the S.E. Railway through Senior Divisional Operation Manager, Chakradharpur for quashing the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 24 of 2004 (Annexure -13).

(2.) RESPONDENT /applicant P.S. Sen -gupta was employed as Dy. CHC under the S.E. Railway with Headquarter at Chakradharpur. On 26.4.1998, after obtaining a special duty pass from his superior in office, he proceeded to Rourekela. At Rourekela, he was arrested by the police on some charges. Consequently, he could not attend his duty thereafter. On the charge firstly, that he absented himself from duty on 26.4.1998 unauthorizedly without giving any information and thereby violated certain specific provisions of conduct rules and secondly, that he left the Headquarters on 26.4.1998 without taking permission from the concerned authorities and thirdly, that he failed to do his assigned duty on 26.4.1998, a departmental inquiry was conducted against him. The first inquiring officer exonerated him from the charges. Not being satisfied, the disciplinary authority appointed another inquiry officer who on conducting the inquiry, held the respondent guilty of all the three charges. Pursuant to the finding of guilt, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 18/12.11.2002 imposed punishment that the respondent be reverted from his present pay of Rs. 6500 -10500/ - to his initial pay scale of Rs. 2550 -3200/ - for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Against the order of disciplinary authority, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority.

(3.) MRS . M.M. Pal, learned Counsel representing the respondent/Railway servant, controverts the grounds advanced by the petitioner as being totally misconceived. Placing reliance on the very same judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi's case (supra), learned Counsel explains that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is wide enough and it can look into the evidences on record where prima facie it appears that the finding of the inquiring officer are perverse and not in consonance with the evidence on record. Learned Counsel explains further that in OA No. 24 of 2004, the respondent/applicant had challenged the order dated 16.12.2003 as passed by the appellate authority with the specific prayer that the impugned order dated 16.12.2003 of the appellate authority upholding the order of punishment dated 8/12.11.2002 imposed by the disciplinary authority, be quashed and set aside. The Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 31.5.2006 considered all relevant aspects including the order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the appellate authority and had recorded its finding accordingly.