The imposition of compulsory retirement was found excessive and disproportionate, emphasizing the need for fair enquiry and consideration of lesser penalties.

ORDER :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. The. present Writ Petition is filed to quash the Order dated 29.08.2008 dismissing O.A.No.678 of 2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad.

2. The facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are as under:-

The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Carriage and Wagon Khalasi on 07.08.1984 and was posted at Bitragunta. The applicant after working as Carriage and Wagon Khalasi from 07.08.1984 to 29.03.1993 was promoted as Khalasi Helper. While working as such, the petitioner was issued a Charge Memorandum on 03.10.2000 alleging that the petitioner committed serious misconduct as he did not carry out the instructions of the superiors and acted in the manner and becoming of a Railway Servant.

3. Pursuant to the enquiry, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of reduction with layer grade of Khalasi for a period of one year (non-recurring). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1530 of 2002 after confirmation of the orders of penalty in Departmental Appeal and Revision. The Tribunal vide Orders dated 29.04.2003 set aside the penalty orders and directed that the petitioner be continued as Basic Fitter i.e. the post he was holding at the time of issuance of Charge Memo with immediate effect. The order attained finality as the Department accepted the order of the Tribunal.

4. On 07.11.2003 the petitioner was again issued another Charge Memorandum under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, "1968 framing a solitary Article of Charge. The Article of Charge is extracted below:-

"Article-I

That the said Sri Ch.Sundaraiah, while functioning as Kha. .Helper, SSE/C&W/O/BTTR committed serious misconduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant in that on 7/8.10.2003 he refused to attend the dry cleaning and obstructed the other Khalasi Helpers also from attending dry cleaning of 478/438 passenger.

Thus, he has violated rule No. 3(1)(ii)(iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

5. On the basis of the enquiry, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement vide Orders dated 27.06.2006. The appeal and revision filed thereon met with the same result. The petitioner thereupon filed O.A.No.678 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 2g.08.2008. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent- Department.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ng proper reasons were Assigned by the disciplinary authority and that the imposition of compulsory retirement is excessive even if the allegation is said to be established. It is also the case of the learned counsel that the petitioner was not provided with a defence counsel and therefore the entire enquiry conducted without there being any assistance to the petitioner is liable to be set aside. It was also contended that the petitioner was issued a Charge Memorandum for not doing dry cleaning job, which does not form part of his duties.

8. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend in the enquiry and the procedure of enquiry cannot be faulted with. It is also contended that the orders of punishment do provide for requisite reasons and that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is just and proportionate to the misconduct.

9. On the basis of the respective arguments, the following points fall for consideration:-

a) Whether the enquiry was conducted adhering to the principles of fairness?

b) Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is excessive to the alleged misconduct?

10. Point (a): The enquiry report is an ex-parte report as it is alleged that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case. The respondent department in order to substantiate