H.K.Rathod, J. - (1.) In this petition, the petitioners, Union of India and others, have challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, passed in OA No. 538 of 1998 dated June 30, 2003. The Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed and set aside the charge sheet, enquiry and penalty order confirmed by the appellate authority. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? The Tribunal directed to reinstate the respondent Sanjaykumar Agarwal in service with all consequential benefits treating the applicant as continuing in service.
(2.) Brief facts of the petition are as under: Respondent was working as a Assistant Station Master at Kosamba. He was served with a charge sheet dated April 2, 1996 on the ground that while working as Assistant Station Master, Kosamba on February 2, 1996, he had failed to check the correct seat of point No. A-9 before delivering T-87/3 to the driver of 2951 Down which had resulted into a serious irregularity of averted collusion as the Train 2951 Down had entered in the west goods loop which was already accepted by Down Goods Train No. CC/ADI. Then, the departmental enquiry had commenced in accordance with the principles of natural justice and order of removal from service was passed against the respondent on June 4, 1997. In appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment. Then, the respondent had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 538 of 1998.
(3.) Petitioner Union of India raised contention that the Divisional Safety Officer (DSO) is the disciplinary authority of the respondent and he was authorized to issue charge sheet. Circular dated August 14, 1997 is not applicable in the present case as the said Circular is issued much after the issuance of the charge sheet dated April 2, 1996. Departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent in accordance with the principles of natural justice. If there was any fault or defect in the charge sheet or the departmental enquiry, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority. The DSO and DOM are one and in equal rank. The decision taken from the said authority is correct and cannot be set aside on this ground. As per letter No. E/308/Q dated June 20, 1969 GM(E)(CCG), there is no bar of disciplinary authority being a Member of Fact Finding, therefore, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal has committed an error and the conclusion is erroneous. Except these submissions, no other submissions have been made by the Counsel for the petitioner.;