- (1.) This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 319 of 2003 (Saliq Ram Mandal versus Union of India and others).
(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that respondent no. 1 was issued charge sheet dated 31.1.2001 while he was working as Gateman at Gate No. 11-C in Jaunpur City. It was alleged in the charge sheet that he after taking charge at 6:55 A.M. in the morning left the railway crossing gate open which ought to have been closed for traffic. As a result of his dereliction of duties, an accident took place when Tractor No. U.T.O. 9389 loaded with bricks collided with one S.J. Passenger train at 7:35 A.M. in the morning in which, one person died on the spot. It was further alleged that after the accident had occurred, respondent no. 1 Salig Ram Mandal ran away from the site of the accident without any information to the Assistant Station Master, Jaunpur, and lodged an FIR with the Police Station concerned.
(3.) When the enquiry proceedings were initiated, Sri V.K.Srivastava, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After evidence was adduced, he submitted his report finding workman-respondent no. 1 to be guilty of the charges. A copy of the report was also provided to respondent no. 1 who was supposed to submit his representation within 15 days thereafter on its receipt. The disciplinary authority after considering the representation of the workman concerned awarded punishment vide order dated 27.4.2002 whereby his pay was reduced to the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540/- at basic pay of Rs. 2610/- for a period of one year. The reviewing authority, however, being of the opinion that the penalty awarded to the delinquent employee was inadequate issued a show-cause notice dated 18.6.2002 under Rule 35 (Revision and Review) of D & AR Rules, 1968 to the workman concerned as to why he may not be dismissed from services. Reply to the notice was submitted by respondent no. 1 on 22.7.2002. The reviewing authority, thereafter, imposed penalty of dismissal from service vide his order dated 31.7.2002 under information to the workman concerned that against the order appeal lies before the Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, Lucknow. The appeal preferred by the workman, respondent no. 2 was considered by the appellate authority, which also was rejected by him vide order dated 17.2.2003.;