A.P. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This original application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had been filed by S. K. Mallick against the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railway and four others. During the pendency the said S. C. Mallick died and in his place his legal representatives were substituted.
(2.) It is the case of the original applicant that while working as Commercial Supervisor under the Eastern Railway, a disciplinary enquiry was started against him and an order of removal from service was passed on 4.7.1984. Being aggrieved by that he filed a writ application in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta which was allowed. The impugned order of removal having been set aside the applicant was reinstated to his former post. On 16.7.1986 another charge -sheet was issued against him on certain allegations. An enquiry officer was appointed. The original applicant denied the allegations made against him. On 13.6.1987 the enquiry officer submitted his report with a finding of guilt on one charge. Accepting the findings of the enquiring officer the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty on him by reducing him to a lower time scale of pay for a period of five years. The penalty was imposed on 28.8.1987. The applicant preferred an appeal to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Sealdah. On 15.1.1988 the said authority acting under Rule 5 of the Railway Servants ( Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 as the reviewing authority issued a notice on the original applicant asking him to show cause as to why the penalty imposed on him passed by his disciplinary authority would not be enhanced. In the application the enquiry proceeding, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate/reviewing authority, have been challenged on various grounds. In filing the application the original applicant had prayed for quashing the charge -sheet, the findings of the enquiry officer, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority.
(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. It is the version of the respondents that the disciplinary enquiry was held on issuing a charge -sheet by the competent authority and after affording reasonable opportunities to the original applicant to defend his case. The original applicant was all along present in the enquiry with his defence assistant and his defence assistant cross -examined all the witnesses examined by the prosecution. According to the respondents, there was no procedural lacuna in the enquiry proceeding and as such it cannot be quashed. The respondents state that accepting the findings of the enquiring officer the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty considering the gravity of the charges In their reply the respondents have denied the averment made in the application that the original applicant had preferred an appeal against the order of penalty. It is their case that under the power conferred by Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Sealdah had the authority to review the penalty and as such in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case he issued an order directing the original applicant to show cause as to why the penalty would not be enhanced. According to the respondents, then is no impropriety in the order passed by his reviewing authority.;