The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to exhaust statutory remedies before directly challenging disciplinary actions before the Tribunal.

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. Having heard Shri D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Railways (writ petitioners) and Shri Gautam Bose, learned Senior Counsel for the sole contesting respondent, who was a railway employee, on several dates, with their consent, this writ petition is being finally disposed of.

2. The writ petition, as filed by the Railways (Union of India), is directed against order dated 03.01.2014 passed in OA No. 64 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for brevity, the Tribunal). By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal set aside the charge-sheet issued to the contesting respondent and also the consequential proceedings which, by now had culminated in the order of removal from service with liberty to the Railways to reinitiate the proceedings after changing the disciplinary authority.

3. The events are somewhat complicated though there is no controversy on facts.

4. It appears that the sole contesting respondent, namely, Bimal Prasad Pattnaik (for brevity, the employee) was a Mail/Express Train Guard in the East Central Railways posted at Gaya. While at Gaya, it appears that Railways administration had taken some action against some Guards in that region. In protest whereto, there were dharna/procession and ultimately abuses being hurled at the Railway administration including the Senior Divisional Operating Manager (for brevity, the DOM) at Gaya. This led to a charge-sheet being issued to the employee on 14.07.2011 by Shri Sanjay Kumar, who was the then Senior DOM, East Central Railways posted at Mughalsarai. Assistant Operating Manager (for brevity, the AOM), Mughalsarai was appointed as Enquiry Officer by Shri Sanjay Kumar, the Senior DOM. The employee, while these proceedings were pending, on or about 12.01.2012, filed OA No. 64 of 2012 before the Tribunal, to quash the charge memo as served upon him. It appears that inspite of repeated adjournments by the Tribunal, as the Railway was not being represented, the Tribunal heard the matter ex-parte and reserved orders on 01.03.2012. It appears that the departmental proceedings were concluded by order of removal from service of the employee being order dated 19.03.2012 with effect from 20.03.2012. It further appears that on the same day, that is on 20.03.2012, in OA No. 64 of 2012, the Tribunal, which had earlier reserved the order, passed orders setting aside the charge memo directing the Railways to replace the disciplinary authority as he was the Authority whom allegedly, the employee and others were abusing and as such, he was a party himself. It may be noticed that when the Tribunal passed this order on 20.03.2012, No one brought to the notice of the Tribunal on 20.03.2012 that final orders had already been passed in the disciplinary proceedings. It then appears that Sanjay Kumar, who had been Senior DOM and who had been made respondent No. 5 in OA No. 64 of 2012, having come to know of the Tribunal’s order, filed a review application being RA No. 20 of 2012 before the Tribunal on 27.03.2012 stating that the Tribunal had wrongly set aside the charge memo as the Railways were not informed of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the case was wrongly treated as ex-parte. While this Review Application No. 20 of 2012 was pending, the employee, having been visited with the order of removal from service, filed statutory appeal before ADRM, East Central Railways, Mughalsarai on or about 20.04.2012. The appellate authority allegedly sat over the order. The employee then filed another Original Application before the Tribunal on 11.08.2012 being OA No. 696 of 2012. This OA was with a prayer to quash the removal order and for a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. In our view, it is appropriate to say that the prayer was in alternative. At this juncture, we would like to notice that three proceedings, in relation to the employee, were pending. Firstly, there was a review application pending, being