Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
E Harikrishnan vs Southern Railway on 10 November, 2022
1 of 20 OA 879/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MADRAS BENCH
OA 310/00879/2021
&
M.A.310/00132/2022 in OA 310/00879/2021
DATED THIS THE ' "pay oF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SHRI-T. JACOB, MEMBER (A).
THE HON'BLE SMT LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
E. Harikrishnan,
Son of G.Ethiraj, aged about 58 years,
Working as Junior Driver,
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction),
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
residing at No. 2/49, Lakshmi Nagar,
Gangaiamman Koil Street,
Vandalur, Chennai - 600 048. Applicant in OA/
Respondent in MA
(Advocate: M/s. Row and Reddy)
Versus
Union of India,
Owing Southern Railway,
Rep.by its Chief Administrative Officer (Construction),
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008;
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer/Works/CN/MS,
Southern Railway, Disciplinary Authority,
Chief Administrative Officer (Construction)
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008;
3. The Enquiry Officer -cum
Chief Office Superintendent,
Chief Administrative Officer (Construction)
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. .. Respondents in OA/
Applicants in MA
{(Advocate: Mrs. Meera Gnanasekar)
2 of 20 OA 879/2021
ORDER
'(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. T. Jacob, Member (A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant urider Sec.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) To quash the memorandum bearing Ref. No. P227/L/CN/EHK/217 dt. 22.06.2021 issued by the 2™ respondent Disciplinary Authority and consequential order bearing Ref No. P/227/[X/CN/EHK. dt. 05.10.2021 in appointing the 3rd respondent as the Enquiry Officer to go into the charges levelled against him as being illegal, arbitrary, malafide, without jurisdiction, abuse process of law and orders passed in W.P No. 15412 of 2011 as confirmed in W.A. No. 1217 of of 2019 and S.L.P, (Civil) Diary No. 15947 of 2020 and for consequential to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the charge memo dt.
" 22.06.2021 and;
(ii) to calculate and settle the arrears of salary and all other service benefits from 17.11.2003 (date of termination} till 11.03.2021 (daté of reinstatement) in terms of the Award dt. 22.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court in 1D. No. 70 of 2009 within a timeframe to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and;
(iii) to pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble "Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, award costs and thus render justice.3 of 20 OA 879/2021
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:-
The app-icant was engaged as Casual driver in the 1" Respondent Department on 05.09.1984. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant and similarly placed persons were decasualised and he was absorbed into the '1* respondent Department on,24.12.1996. The 1"
respondent directed the applicant to produce the community certificate for their records. He produced the School certificate, where Gowrisan who had brought him up and got him admitted to the Government High School had declared that he is an SC. The respondent by an Office Order No.42/2003 dt. 17.11.2003 terminated the services of the applicant on the ground that the Collector of Chennai had cancelled his community certificate on 06.01.2001 without any show cause notice and departmental enquiry. On 24.06.2004, the Departmental Authority rejected the Appeal on the ground that if he has not directly attained any benefit due to the community status as SC, he should have corrected the mistake. On 26.06.2006, the Reviewing Authority confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary.and Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the applicant raised an industrial dispute on 10.03.2008 . The Labour Court by its award dt. 22.10.2010 went into the question of termination dated 17.11.2003 and the community certificate. The Labour Court held that the applicant did not rely upon the community certificate and he was absorbed due to decasualization pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court. The Award dt. 22.10.2010 passed by CGIT was confirmed in W.P. No. 15413 of 2011. The W.A. No. 1217 of 2019 filed by 4 of 20 OA 879/2021 the 1* respondent Department was dismissed on 05.04.2019, The ist respondent filed S.L.P (Civil) Diary No. 15947 of 2020 and the same was disposed of after recording the statement that he had not derived any benefits based on the community certificate. After the dismissal of the SLP, the respondent Railways reinstated the applicant in service on 12.03.2021 but he was put on the minimum basic pay. On 12.07.2021 and 02.08.2021, he gave a representation to the 1* respondent Department for fixation of salary on par with batchmates and payment of arrears of salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and all other service benefits applicable to the similarly placed employees. The 1* respondent Department in the Supreme Court has submitted that he had not derived any benefit from the community certificate and earlier termination order dt. 17.11.2003 has been set aside and it has become final as between the parties. The respondent for the very same reason namely he has produced false community certificate and that reflected on his integrity and devotion to duty has issued another charge memo dated 22.06.2021 which is monstrous and a clear abuse of the process of law. On 05.10.2021, the 2™ respondent has appointed 3™ respondent as the Enquiry Officer to go into the alleged charges levelled against him. on 20.10.2021, the 3" respondent Enquiry Officer has issued a notice fixing the enquiry on 29.10.2021 at 10.00 am. Hence the OA >
3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alia, on the following grounds:~ 5 of 20 OA 879/2021
(i) The charge sheet dt. 22.06.2021 is without jurisdiction as per the earlier proceeding which culminated in the SLP, the Assistant Solicitor General of India has admitted that applicant has not derived any benefit out of the community certificate and he was absorbed pursuant to a decasualization scheme. Subsequently, on 12.03.2021; he was reinstated in service. This is clearly an abuse of the process of law.
(ii) Earlier, the services came to be terminated on the ground that the community certificate was cancelled by the District Collector on 06.01.2001 and all Courts clearly found that he has not derived any benefit out of the certificate. Such being the case, the question of lack of integrity and devotion to duty does not arise and the charge is without jurisdiction.
(ii) The very reason in the charge sheet namely lack of integrity and devotion te duty was tested in Labour Court and the said finding of the Labour Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court has given categorical finding that his employment was not due to community status but due to the decasualization pursuant to the Supreme Court Orders. Such being the case, no proceedings can be initiated that by producing the certificate there was lack of integrity and devotion to duty.
(iv) The respondents failed to see that the community certificate was based on the School certificate and the community status was given by guardian when he was a small boy. He did not object to the cancellation of the certificate, 6 of 20 OA 879/2021
(v) When he has not derived any benefit and in the earlier proceedings which was based on the community certificate was set aside and it has become final after the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dt. 18.11.2020 and he has reinstated in service on 12.03.2021. There is no cause of action for initiation of the impugned proceedings based on the community certificate issued which has attained finality as between the parties.
(vi) The respondents are trying to overreach the orders passed by the Hon'ble Courts on a similar issue as between the parties and the same has attained finality. The action of respondents is clearly an abuse of the discretionary power vested in them for initiation of departmental proceedings and the same is illegal, malafide and without any jurisdiction.
(vii) The action of the respondents is violative of the applicant's right guaranteed under Art. 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is unconstitutional.
4. The Learned counsel for applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 663 of 1978 dazed 21.03.1985 in the case of Chief Army Staff and Ors. Vs. Dharam Pal Kukrety reported in (1985) 2SCC 412. -
5. The respondents have filed a detailed reply. It is submitted that initially the applicant was engaged as Extra Labour requisite (ELR) as Casual Service Driver with effect from 05.09.1984 at MTP/R/O/MS. and given Temporary 7 of 20 OA 879/2021 status on 31-08-1985. He was empanel!led as Driver/GrIII w.e.f 02.09.1996 with lien in Chennai Division. He was further promoted as Sr. Driver on adhoc basis w.e.f. 07-09-1990. During 1994, a complaint was received from All India SC/ST Railway Employees Association vide letter dt.Nil.09.1994 alleging that the employee is not belonging to SC Community, since his own brother Shri. E. Radhakrishnan is also working in Railways as Driver in Dy.CE/CN/O/MAS and he belongs to OC Community. The Chief Vigilance Officer, Southern Railway also made a reference on the production of false community certificate by the applicant. Accordingly, his community certificate was sent for verification to " District Collector, Chennai. It was proved that the applicant does not belong to SC community and hence the competent authority i.e. the District Level Vigilance Committee had cancelled the community certificate issued in favour of the applicant by the Tasildhar, Purasaiwalkam, Perambur Taluk, Chennai vide proceeding dt, 6-01-2001.
6. In view of the cancellation of the community certificate of the applicant his services were terminated w.e.f. 17-11-2003 by the Chief Engineer, MTP in conformity with the Board's Letter No.98-EC (SCT)I/31/1 dt.24/28-09-99 (PBC No. 175/99) (Marked as Annexure R3). It is submitted that the ex-employee made an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer, CN&MTP/R/MS for reinstatement into service. Simultaneously, he filed an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.388/2004, for an early disposal of the appeal preferred by him to the Chief Administrative Officer, 8 of 20 OA 879/2021 CN& MTP/MS. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench vide order dated 27.04.2004 disposed of OA No. 388/2004 at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. In compliance of the order dated 27.04.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA No.388/2004, MTP (Railway) Chennai, considered the appeal dated 24.11.2003 of the applicant and confirmed the order of termination of the application 24.06.2004.
7. It is submitted that the applicant, had approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court vide 1.D.No.70/2009 with a prayer to reinstate him in services with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The CGIT/LC allowed the ID. No. 70/2009 vide orders dated 22.10.2010. The administration filed a detailed reply staternent that the petition filed under Section 2A (2) of the I.D. Act 1947 does not have jurisdiction before this Hon'ble CGIT-cum Labour court since the respondent was not a 'workman' as defined under the I.D. Act 1947. Moreover, the Railway Board Letter No. 98EC(SCT) 1/31/1 dated 24/28-09-1999 clearly indicate that the dispute with regard to submission of false community certificate can be challenged in the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court only. The Presiding Officer of Hon'ble CGIT- cum Labour court passed an award dated 22.10.2010(Marked as Annexure A9) that, "In the result, the respondent is directed to be reinstated into service forthwith with back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits, 9 of 20 OA 879/2021 Thereafter the Management may impose upon him a lesser punishment short of actual termination from services', The same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the action of the administration issuing the charge sheet to the applicant, is in accordance with the award passed by the Hon'ble CGIT. The applicant herein is misleading this Tribunal by hiding the 2™ part of the operative portion of the award passed by the Hon'ble CGIT.
8. Though applicant was not extended the benefits of "SC" employee, his action in submitting the false community certificate was with malafide intention of deriving undue service benefits. Further the applicant herein knowingly suppressed the real facts and misled the government organisation for treating him as 'SC' candidate even though he did not belong to the 'Schedule Caste'. It was not possible to say what benefit he had obtained due to his community status as SC. Even if he had not directly attained any benefit he was aware that he had produced false community certificate. There are clear instructions on the subject to impose the penalty of 'removal from service' without even giving a notice in such cases and hence, the action taken by the administration is in line with extant instructions. Because the applicant had not come forward to correct the status of his community voluntarily before the administration initiated to verify the veracity of the community certificate submitted by the applicant. The applicant's ulterior motive is to avail the benefits applicable to Schedule caste employees in Railways. After opening this issue and on the basis of the complaints, and after conducting the enquiry by the District Level Scrutiny 10 of 20 ; OA 879/2021 Committee and on cancelling the SC community certificate the applicant cannot plead to cancel the same on his own volition. It is further submitted that the orders passed by respondent are in order, not illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Principles of Natural justice. It is submitted that the termination order was issued after the enquiry conducted by the District Level Scrutiny Committee nominated by the State Government nominated for such purposes. Sufficient opportunities were given to the applicant by the scrutiny committee and the applicant had attended the enquiry on 14.09.2000 and 08.12.2000. Now, he cannot claim that enquiry was not conducted before his termination from service Therefore, there is no violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.
9. The respondents have also relied on the following judgments in support of their contentions:-
i) The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Lasilamani in Civil Appeal No. 8263 fo 2012 deceided on 23.11.2012 reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530;
li) The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chanda Mirdha in Civil Appeal No. 2333 of 2007 decided on 29.05.2012 reorted in (2012) 11 SCC 565;
iii) The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Amr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayan in Civil Appeal No. 5145 of 2006 decided on 22.11.2006 reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28: .
iv) The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr. In Civil Appeal Nos. 8509-510 of 2003 11 of 20 OA 879/2021 decided on 19.10.2010 reported in (2010) 13 SCC 311.
v) The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of K. Thirumurgan =v. Additional Chief Secreary/Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, Chennai & Anr in W-P. No. 15015 of 2018 & W.M.P.Nos. 17784 and 17785 of 2018 dated 20.04.2019;
vi) The decisioin of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of K. Arumugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu in W.A. No. 1463 of 2019 dated 10.01.2020, reported in 2020(5) CTC 273.
10. Applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the O.A. li. Heard Ld. Counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
12, Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the categorical findings of various courts, it is no more open for the respondent department to initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant on the same allegation that he had submitted one fake caste certificate and the same is lo more open to be decided in any departmental proceeding.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents, inter alia, submits that after disposal of the SLP on 18.11.2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant was reinstated in service and thereafter the charge memo in question has been issued. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that question of misconduct in filing fake certificate by the applicant has not been dealt by CGIT-Cum-Labor Court or any of the courts, therefore the respondent department is well within its right to initiate departmental proceeding against the applicant im accordance 12 of 20 OA 879/2021 with law. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that there is no illegality or irregularity in the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the applicant and it is for the applicant to appear before the inquiry officer and demonstrate his innocence by utilizing the opportunity that would be accorded to him. The OA is, therefore, pre-mature and deserves to be dismissed, 14, Facts are note in dispute. The District Collector cancelled the Community Certificate of the applicant issued by Tahsildar, Purasaiwalkkam, Perambur Taluk, Chennai duly giving show cause notice dated 03.11.2000 and consequently applicant's service was terminated by respondent vide order dated 17.11.2003 The applicant was directed to be reinstated into service by the order of the Learned C.G.1.T cum Labour Court which is as follows,:
"Therefore I am of the view that the management committed excesses in terminating the petitioner from service. He could have been allowed to continue in service after imposing appropriate punishments short of an outright termination from service, after a proper enquiry. It is the paramount duty of administrative authorities to see tkat when an action is taken under a direction or rule or law it is done harmoniously so as to tally with the difference between laws in thé book and the law in reality with proper application of mind to the given facts and circumstances in order to meet the ends of justice.
In the result the petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service forthwith with backwages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Thereafter the management, may 13 of 20 OA 879/202] impose upon him a lesser punishment short of actual termination from service."
Thus Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, order dated: 22.10.2010. In Compliance with the award passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applicant was reinstated into service vide Office Order dated 11.03.2021 without any prejudice to departmental action against him under Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 for the false community certificate produced by him. Thereafter, the applicant was, issued a charge memo No.P227/CN/EHK/217 dt. 22.06.2021 under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 by 2™ respondent and vide Letter No. P227/CN/EHK/217 4t.05.10.2021 and the 3rdrespondent was nominated as the Inquiry Officer by the 2™ respondent.
15. The question relating to quashing of charge memo has been repeatedly dealt with by the Supreme Court in several cases.
i) In (1987) 2 SCC 179 (STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. BRAHM DATT SHARMA AND ANOTHER), while dealing with the question of quashing of charge memo at show-cause notice, the Supreme Court had observed :-
"9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the .14 of 20 OA 879/2021
notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought"
not have interfered with the show cause notice."
ii) Generally, judicial interference in quashing charge sheet is not encouraged save in very exceptional cases, vide Upendra Singh vs. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 357 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no Jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be."15 of 20 OA 879/2021
iii). Similarly in (1996) 3 SCC 157 (SECRETARY TO GOVERMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT v. L. SRINIVASAN), the Supreme Court observed :-
"3. We are informed that charge-sheet was laid for prosecution for the offences of embezzlement and fabrication of false records etc. and that the offences and the trial of the case is pending. The Tribunal had set aside the departmental enquiry and quashed the charge on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In the nature of the charges, it would take a long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records which should be done in secrecy. It is not necessary to go into the merits and record any finding on the charge levelled against the charged officer since any finding recorded by this Court would gravely prejudice the case of the parties at the enquiry and also at the trial. Therefore, we desist from expressing any opinion on merit or recording any of the contentions raised by the counsel on either side. Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunal has committed grossest error in its exercise of the judicial review. The member of the administrative Tribunal appears to have no knowledge of the jurisprudence of the service law and exercised power as if he is an appellate forum dehors the limitation of judicial review. This is one such instance where a member had exceeded his power of judicial review in quashing the suspension order and charges even at the threshold. We are coming across such orders frequently putting heavy pressure on this Court to examine each case in detail. It is high time that it is remedied."16 of 20 OA 879/2021
iv) In a decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1639 (GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS v, APPALA SWAMY), the Supreme Court observed as follows '= "10. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are:
(1) Where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee.
(2) Where the delay cause prejudice to the employee.
Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the Inquiry Officer."
v) The Supreme Court had observed inter alia in the case reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833 (STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vy, N. RADHAKISHAN) as under:-
"19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case, The essence of the matter is that the Court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is 17 of 20 OA 879/2021 @ no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has Vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice 'to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary O authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the O Court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & others Vs. Swathi Patil in Civil Appeal No. 3881 of 2007 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17417 of 2006) has held as under:-
"We are unable to countenance with the above extracted reasoning recorded by the High Court whether there exists sufficient and cogent material to sustain the articles of 18 of 20 OA 879/2021 charge or not, should not be decided by the court at the stage of framing of the charges, The articles of charge can be established by the evidence only during the course of inquiry without being inquired into by an inquiry office and without recording any finding whether the article of charge has been sustained or not either by oral enquiry or documentary evidence, it was not open for the High Court to come to the conclusion at the stage of framing of charges that no material is forthcoming to establish the charges."
16. The applicant, by means of the present OA, has sought the relief of quashing the charge memo. The law relating to quashing of charge memo has also been well settled through several judgments of various courts. The Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal recently in O.A. No. 201/2019 (Anuradh Mookerjee Vs. Union of India and Others) decided on 16.10.2019 held in para 9 of the judgment, laid down the criteria for the same as under:-
"The general principle is that whenever an employee or officer assails a charge memo, the courts or the Tribunal would be reluctant to interfere with the same, unless the factors such as listed as under exist:-
i) The Charge Memo having been issued by an officer not competent to do so;.
li) The subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings is a fairly old and stale matter raked up at a stage when the officer or employee was due for promotion;
iii) where even if the contents of the charges are taken as true, they do not constitute an act of misconduct; exist."
19 of 20 OA $79/2021
17. Anumber of grounds have been raised by the applicant vide para 5 of the OA. The Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and confirmed the order of the Learned Labour Court, the Learned CGIT cum Labour Court has given liberty to the applicants/Railways impose lesser punishment. Hence, the departmental proceeding initiated against the respondent/applicant, is not against the order of Hon'ble Apex Court.
18. Now, testing the facts of the instant OA on the touchstone of above discussion, we find that there is no such allegation that charge memo has not been issued by an officer incompetent to do so or the matter of disciplinary proceedings is fairly old or any other ground legally available for quashing of charge memo. Therefore, the prayer for quashing charge memo is refused.
19. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunal and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think it is a fit case where the Tribunal could interfere with the impugned order of the 1" respondent, particularly keeping in view the Hmited scope of interference in such matters. The interim order granted on 28.10.2021 hereby stands vacated.
20. The judgment relied upon by the applicant is inapplicable as it was rendered in different facts and circumstance of the cases than the one available in the present case,
21. Since the applicant is due for superannuation on 31.07.2023 and the applicant has given explanation to the charge memo, interest of justice would be i . oa a 20 of 20 OA 879/2021 met if a direction is given to the respondents to continue with the inquiry in accordance: with the laid down procedure and direction to the applicant to 'cooperate in the inquiry so that the proceedings would be completed within four months from the date of communication of this order to the parties. Registrar of the Tribunal shall ensure that the certified copies of this order are supplied to the counsel for the parties forthwith. If the inquiry is not concluded within the above stipulated time the authority may seek extension for a further period of two months (i.e. before superannuation of the applicant by moving an MA for extension of titne, furnishing in the application for extension of time the action so far taken and the balance to be taken in completion of the inquiry. In case no application for such extension is filed and the inquiry also has not been completed within the stipulated time, the proceedings shall be construed as lapsed. It is made-clear that the observations made as above are on the basis of the-facts 'culled out of-récords and thus, no opinion is expressed on the merit of NN aa te the case.