- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 14.5.2004 (Annexure P-3], passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'] and charge sheet dated 21.8.2003 (Annexure A-1 with Annexure P-1].
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the railway department on 10.1.1964 and after rendering about 40 years of service retired on 31.12.2003. In the year 1987, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Station Master at Railway Station, Shambhu. He was assigned the job of passing of trains safely under the system of signals installed at the Railway Station. On 16.12.1987, an accident took place at the time of passing of 350 Down Passenger Train, when Down Diesel Engine and Down Goods Train were involved in rear end collision. On 1.3.1989, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner levelling the allegation that he failed to ensure proper procedure of passing trains. The petitioner denied the charges. A departmental inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.5.1989. On 31.5.1989, the Divisional Safety Officer (DSO) passed orders of removal of the petitioner from service. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.1990.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 780/HR of 1991 before the Tribunal with a prayer to quash orders dated 31.5.1989 and 2.7.1990 and inquiry report dated 14.5.1989. He sought directions to the respondents to reinstate him on the post he was holding, with effect from 13.5.1989, with all service benefits including arrears of salary, increments and seniority etc. The petitioner, inter alia, challenged the aforementioned orders on the ground that he was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, inasmuch as, the documents relied upon by the department in the departmental inquiry were withheld. A preliminary fact finding inquiry was conducted by the Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS). Despite requests made by the petitioner, the CRS report was not supplied to him, whereas the same was relied upon by the respondents against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner further pleaded that the removal orders were passed by an authority who was not competent to act as Disciplinary Authority. The appellate order was non-speaking and against the provisions of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.;