V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

(1) IN this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the judgment of the Central administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, mumbai dated December 14, 1998, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application no. 413/1997 preferred by the petitioner.

(2) THE petitioner was dismissed by an order dated October 15, 1990 consequent to disciplinary proceedings. Against the said order, he had filed an appeal and the departmental Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Tribunal in the above mentioned Original Application. The Tribunal after considering the enquiry proceedings, the findings of the enquiry officer and the rival contentions of the parties held that the order of dismissal did not suffer from any infirmity and the petitioner was rightly awarded the punishment of dismissal.

(3) THE petitioner was in the employment of Railway from 1956 as a Driver 'a' grade in bhusawal Division of the Central Railway. On January 25, 1990, the petitioner was driving passenger train No. 1354 UP. Due to careless and negligent driving of the petitioner, he passed the UP Home Signal of Niphad Station in danger position and side collided with Down dto Jumbo Goods rake. As a result of the said collision, damage of Rs. 2,88,000/-was caused to the coaches, wagons and loco of the train. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on account of the said accident alleging violation of GR 3. 78 (i), GR. 380, SR 80 (l) (a), GR 4. 22 (2), GR 4. 8 and SR 4. 22-1. The petitioner was also charged of committing serious lapses of safety and very careless and negligent driving. The petitioner had denied the charges and, therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer holding that the charges were duly proved, the petitioner is awarded punishment of dismissal.

(4) WHILE dismissing the departmental appeal, the appellate authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. The appellate authority was satisfied that the enquiry conducted was in keeping with the principles of natural justice and did not violate 5 the service rules. The punishment of dismissal was found to be just and proper; and therefore did not suffer from any infirmity so as to cause interference.

(5) BEFORE the Central Administrative tribunal, the order of dismissal was challenged on the following grounds, namely:

(a) non-supply of the demanded documents;

(b) enquiry was conducted by an officer junior in rank as compared to the members of the fact finding committee which had also undertaken a preliminary investigation and, therefore, the junior officer who acted as the enquiry officer was likely to be influenced;

(c) some of the defence witnesses were not permitted to be examined by the enquiry officer;

(d) the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse;

(e) the charge-sheet was issued by an officer who was not competent to impose the punishment; and

(f) the charge that he was negligent and careless while discharging his duties did not constitute a misconduct and that punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge.

(6) THE Tribunal held that the charge-sheet was issued by the senior Divisional Electrical engineer while the order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority i. e. the divisional Railway Manager and this was in compliance of Rules 8 and 10 of the Railway servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

(7) MR. Bapat, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the enquiry was conducted by an officer junior in rank as compared to the members of the Fact Finding committee which had undertaken a preliminary investigation, in such case, the reports of the enquiry officer could not be relied upon as the junior officer would always be influenced by the findings of the Fact Finding committee. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other ha