BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This petition is by Union of India challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23rd July 1998 allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent No. 1, Poosa Ram. The respondent was subjected to disciplinary enquiry under Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The charge levelled against the respondent was that a complaint had been received from on Sh. Sita Ram on 30. 3. 1990. A trap was laid by CBI Inspector and the respondent was caught red handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 75/- from Sh. Sita Ram and that was recovered from the left side of his trousers' pocket. For the conduct of inquiry into the said charge of the memorandum dated 13 March 1991, one Dr. Atta Mohd was appointed as an Inquiry Officer, who was the then ADMO, Northern Railway Hospital Jodhpur. Said Atta Mohd submitted his inquiry report (Exb. 5) dated 10. 2. 94, holding the incumbent guilty of the charges levelled against him and submitted it to the Disciplinary Authority viz. Divisional Medical Officer for further action.
(2.) AGAINST the inquiry report the delinquent officer raised certain objections which included the allegation that inquiry has been conducted without opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, whose statements were made available to him. In his objection (Annex. 7) dated 24. 3. 1994, the delinquent specifically alleged summing up that, `the worthy inquiry officer might be under fear of SPE/cbi case hurried up in concluding the inquiry. ' The Disciplinary Authority vide his order (Annexure-8) dated 13. 4. 94 upheld the objection raised by the delinquent that during the course of inquiry opportunity of cross-examination of the complainant Shri Sita Ram & Witness Dr. V. K. Gupta has not been given by the Inquiry Officer and neither any remarks have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer for his deviation from procedure of the disciplinary inquiry. In view thereof he also recorded that if the delinquent railway servant and his defence helper were at fault for not attending the D&ar enquire on the fixed dates. without any genuine and convincing reasons then such remarks should have been given by the Enquiry Officer about the same but no such remarks have been recorded by the E. O. Thus accepting those contentions about the violation of principle of justice, which was admitted by the Disciplinary Authority, that Sh. Sita Ram and Sh. Poosa Ram and his defence helper and witness V. K. Gupta, all have been called in one sitting for cross- examination and the Enquiry Officer was directed to complete the enquiry in above respect giving the delinquent railway officer reasonable opportunity to defend his case and to submit the enquiry report after completing the same at the earliest. In pursuance of this order when the Enquiry was to be completed in the light of directions issued by the Disciplinary Authority, the then Enquiry Officer Dr. Atta Mohd. excused himself from continuing as an Enquiry Officer on the ground that delinquent has expressed his doubts about his independence in his representation that the Enquiry Officer is probably under the influence of CBI Officer. In such position, is not fair and according to law of justice to conduct enquiry into the case again by him. He therefore, requested to nominate another Enquiry Officer. This letter was sent by the Enquiry Officer Dr. Atta Mohd. on 2. 5. 1994. Acting on that, the Disciplinary Authority by conveying, that since delinquent employee has objected to enquiry conducted in the vigilance case and the validity of his report on the basis of violation of natural justice, nominated Sh. N. K. Khandelwal, as another Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry and make the report. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by said Mr. Khandelwal in which the delinquent participated without any objection and submitted his report Exb. 12, dated 10. 2. 95 again coming to the same conclusion that the charge levelled against the delinquent officer is proved. The findings of the enquiry report were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority after giving opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and considering the objections raised by him to the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, imposed the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 5. 5. 95, Exhibit-15.
(3.) APPEAL against which was also dismissed by the appellate authority, the Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur vide Exb. 18, dated 18. 8. 95. This led to filing of Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Amongst other contentions it was contended by the delinquent before the Tribunal that in terms of Rule 10 (1) and 10 (2) only the same Enquiry Officer could continue and make report against whose report has not been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority where the disciplinary authority himself is not the enquiry officer and matter has been sent back to him. No power vest in the Disciplinary Authority to appointee another E. O. and it ought to be conducted by the same officer. As the Enquiry Officer has proceeded contrary to the rules, the entire enquiry has been vitiated. The aforesaid contention of the delinquent officer was accepted by the tribunal and the order of the punishment has been set aside on that ground alone by reinstating the delinquent with all consequential benefits except the arrears of emoluments for the period during which he remained out of employment. ;