Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.

ORDER:

(per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

1. Heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Writ Petition was filed by the Union of India and others under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 02.04.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.NO.1163 of 2002.

3. The OA was filed by the applicant/respondent herein – Sri D.R.K. Reddy challenging the order of removal dated 12.09.2002, passed by the disciplinary authority the Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada, removing respondent from service and declaring the order of removal as void ab-initio and without jurisdiction.

4. The OA was allowed by the order dated 02.04.2004, the operative portion of the order reads as under:

“In the result, this O.A. is allowed. The impugned order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority is hereby set-aside declaring that the said order passed is void ab-initio and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant to the post of TTE and to grant him all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay from the date of removal till reinstatement, promotion, continuity of service. There shall be compliance with this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.”

5. The respondent while working as TTE/BZA in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040, was charge sheeted on the basis of the decoy check conducted on his working on the train No.7016 Visakha and also 8689 Bokaro express trains for major penalty. The 2nd petitioner imposed the punishment of reduction to the lower grade from TTE to TC, from the basic pay of Rs.4400/- in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to Rs.3050/-in scale Rs.3050-4590 for 5 years (recurring) with loss of seniority with effect from 10.07.1998 vide order dated 30.06.1998. The 1st petitioner, as the appellate authority, confirmed the punishment vide order dated 17.12.1998. The revising authority also confirmed the same by order dated 09.09.1999. The respondent challenged the aforesaid orders in O.A.No.1407 of 1999 before the Tribunal, which was allowed by order dated 10.07.2001. The order of punishment was set aside and direction was issued to hold fresh enquiry, appointing a different Enquiry Officer, other than Mr.Gopal Das. It was also directed that the Enquiry shall be completed within two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of that order and final order be also passed.

6. The operative portion of the order dated 10.07.2001 in OA.No.1407 of 1999 is as under:

“The impugned orders are therefore quashed. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh enquiry appointing Enquiry Officer other than Mr.Gopal Das. The enquiry shall be completed within two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and a final order be passed.”

7. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority appointed Mr.M.A.Veerabhadra Rao, as Enquiry Officer by order dated 30.01.2002 to conduct enquiry in regard to the charge memo dated 23.04.1997. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report with the findings that the Article of the charge was proved. The Enquiry report was served to the respondent on 28.06.2002 to submit his representation. However, he did not submit his representation/explanation to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service with effect from 13.09.2002, by order dated 12.09.2002 and the same was served on the respondent on 12.09.2002.

8. Challenging the order of removal dated 12.09.2002 the respondent filed the O.A.No.1407 of 1999.

9. As per the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition, the main ground on which the order of removal was challe