JUDGMENT :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.05.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder a writ petition filed by the appellant herein from a judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the respondents original application, was dismissed.

3. Respondent, at all material times, was and still is working as Inspector of Works at Satna. Allegedly, on the premise that he had accepted substandard quality of wood, a charge-sheet was issued. Indisputably, the procedure for imposition of major penalties on Railway Servants is governed by Chapter V of Establishment Code Volume-I; paragraph 3 whereof reads as under :

"3. Appointment of Board of Inquiry or Inquiring Officer (R.1710). The Disciplinary Authority may enquire into the charges itself or if it considers necessary, it may, either at the time of communicating the charges to the Railway servant under Rule 1709 or at any time thereafter, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the purpose, which will be termed as the "Inquiring Authority".

Note--This is an enabling rule. The inquiry may be conducted by the Disciplinary Authority itself or he may get the same done through an agency of his choice. The choice is confined either to a Board or a named Officer. The procedure in all cases is to be in accordance with that laid down in Rule 1709 ante."

4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed for holding the said disciplinary enquiry. He was a Chief Engineer being on deputation to the Vigilance Department. Whereas the appointing authority of the respondent was of the rank of District Railway Manager, the Disciplinary authority is only a Senior Executive Engineer. The District Railway Manager of Railways is also the appellate authority.

5. Before the disciplinary proceedings commenced, respondent, indisputably by a letter dated 20.2.1996 requested the Inquiry Officer to summon the Assistant Engineer Mr. B.S. Walia, stating :

"You will be kind enough to fix up date of the next inquiry in first Fortnight of March 1996 anywhere as per your convenience. Shri B.S. Walia, A.E.N.(M) STA now A.E.N. (M) N.G.P. "Headquarter" must be called for as the AEN who recorded 100% test check. All other witnesses to whom the vigilance wants to examine may be called and there presence be ensured. Further the inquiries date to be fixed for examination and the same sequence arguments are also submitted. This will facilitate early completion of an inquiry.

EX AEN (C) STA Shri B.S. Walia, who is of course is a Rly. Witness but since he is very much involved in measurements and checking in supply, he may be specifically be requested to be present to clear many contradiction to enable the inquiry officer to derive at a fair and free judicious conclusion."

6. The said letter was not responded to. It was not rejected either. Concededly, the said Mr. Walia was not examined.

7. In the disciplinary proceedings, respondent was found guilty. Punishment of reduction of pay to the lower stage in the scale of 6500-10500/-for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on him by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 6.1.1998. He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. The Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty by directing reduction of his pay to the lowest stage of Rs.6500/- in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500/-for a period of three years with cumulative effect.

8. Order of the Appellate Authority was questioned by the respondent by filing an original application before the Central Administration Tribunal. In the said application, respondent, inter alia, contended that Inquiry Officer being superior in rank to the Disciplinary Authority and Mr. B.S. Walia having not been examined as a witness by the Department, the order imposing penalty was unsustainable.

The learned Tribunal held :

"After hearing the learned couns