E.K.BHARAT BHUSHAN - (1.) This OA has been filed by Shri R.M. Patel, former SSE, Signal Inspector, Western Railway against the order compulsorily retiring him from service. The relief sought are as follows: - - "(A) Be pleased to call for the record of the Disciplinary proceedings of the applicant along with other relevant file and after perusal of the same. (B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet dated 16.9.2009 and inquiry report dated 19.2.2010 and order of the disciplinary authority dated 24.3.2010 and appellate order dated 27.5.2010 and revisional order 6.6.2011 being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and direct respondent authority to reinstate the applicant with a consequential benefits permissible under law. (C) Be pleased to hold and declare that applicant has not committed any misconduct and respondent has not acted in accordance with the provision of law and specially provision of RSDAR 1968 and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice. (D) Any other relief as court may deem fit."
(2.) The case in brief is as below: - - "The applicant was recruited as a Signal Inspector Grade III by Railway Recruitment Board in the year 1991 and was subsequently promoted to Grade II and Grade I respectively. On 9.4.2009, when the applicant was posted at Godhra -Baroda Sec. of the Baroda Division of Western Railway, an accident was caused to a Goods Train at LC No. 38 at Kharasaliya Railway Station. In accordance with the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Transportation Inspector (T.I.) Godhra, a charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 19.5.2009(Annexure A/1 colly), by respondent No. 2. Similar Charge sheets (SF 11) were also issued to Shri Hira Singh Arhat (ESM) Kharsaliya and Shri S.K. Dhanotia, JE -II (Signal). However, the charge sheet issued to Shri Hira Singh Arhat and Shri B.K. Dhanotia were withdrawn by the authorities whereas in the case of the applicant a new charge sheet, to impose major penalty, (SF -5) was issued. Despite the applicant's representation to respondent No. 2, further action was taken and Shri Harshad Jain, ASTE, Godhra was appointed as Inquiry Officer. As per the report of the Inquiry Officer, charges framed against the applicant were partially proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, imposed upon the applicant the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 24.3.2010 (Annexure A -5). Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 (ADRM -Baroda) on 5.5.2010 alleging violation of natural justice and violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. The appeal, however, was rejected as unsustainable vide order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure A -6). Upon this the applicant filed Revision Petition before the respondent No. 4. The Revision authority by a speaking order dated 5.6.2011 (Annexure A -7), reduced the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement. The applicant has put forth the argument that the Disciplinary Authority in this case was not the Appointing Authority and hence the entire process is to be declared null and void in terms of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (RSDAR). Further, it has been argued that in the Inquiry Report as well as in the orders of the Revisional Authority, it is stated that only Part responsibility has been placed on the applicant. Hence, natural justice is violated, as he alone has been given the extreme punishment while others who were initially arraigned, were let off."
(3.) In a detailed statement on behalf of the respondents it has been maintained that all due procedures under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 have been observed. In the said accident, lives have been lost and it merits serious deterrent action. The Inquiry Officer has delved into the whole issue in detail and come to the conclusion that the applicant cannot escape from his responsibility for the accident. Further, the applicant was given fair chance of appeal which was also duly considered and disposed of in accordance with procedure. The applicant also filed a Revision Petition before respondent No. 4, wherein a more favourable view was taken and the punishment was reduced from removal to compulsory retirement.;