JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellants - Union of India and its officers related with South Eastern Railway -have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPCT No. 330 of 2013, whereby the High Court has disapproved the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench ('the Tribunal') in OA No. 293 of 2011 and has also held that the remitted proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent were rendered nullity, for having not been concluded within the time limit fixed by the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 03.09.2010.

1.1. In view of its findings and conclusion, the High Court has disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent with directions to the appellants to reinstate him in service and to pay him 50% back wages from the date of removal from service i.e., 17.02.2011 and until the date of reinstatement.

2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the issues arising for consideration in this appeal, all the factual aspects and merits of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings need not be dilated upon. Only a brief reference to the relevant background aspects would suffice.

2.1. It has been the case of appellants that on 09.11.2005, the respondent, an Electric Locomotive Driver, while piloting a locomotive engine, overshot the signal and thereby, endangered the property and operation of railways as also the life of citizens. As per railway manual, a joint enquiry was conducted in regard to the incident in question and it was found that it had been a matter of averted collision, due to the locomotive not being controlled; and that the brake adjustment rods were allegedly manipulated by the respondent-driver and his codriver, in an attempt to justify their stand that the engine could not be controlled due to the poor power of brakes. Based on the enquiry report, a major penalty charge-sheet bearing No. RS/ACC/6/2005/SK/MJ dated 06.12.2005 was issued to the respondent.

2.2. After the enquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority, having examined the record and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, ultimately served the respondent with the punishment notice dated 23.02.2006, imposing the penalty of removal from railway service with immediate effect.

2.3. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid punishment notice dated 23.02.2006 wherein, after considering the assurances given by the respondent to remain more careful in the future, the Appellate Authority, by its order dated 23.08.2006, modified the penalty to that of downgrading his pay to the lowest stage in the scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/-.

2.4. The respondent preferred a revision petition against the order so passed by the Appellate Authority but the Revisional Authority, by its order dated 14.03.2007, declined to interfere while observing that as per technical review, nothing was wrong with the brakes of the locomotive; and that the respondent had encountered several down-gradients successfully and fading of brakes could not occur abruptly.

2.5. The respondent, thereafter, filed OA No. 373 of 2007 before the Tribunal, challenging the orders passed against him and seeking reinstatement with all benefits. The Tribunal decided the OA so filed by the respondent by its order dated 03.09.2010.

2.5.1. Though the Tribunal noted the questions involved in the matter as to whether the report of the Commissioner, Railway Safety/Joint Enquiry could hold somebody guilty or their role was only to ascertain systemic defects so as to prevent recurrence in future; and as to whether such report could be accepted in evidence without examining the authors? The Tribunal, however, observed that these questions were not required to be answered and proceeded to hold that the proceedings suffered from illegality and impropriety in view of the fact that one of the members who had submitted the joint enquiry re