A.K. Goswami, J

Heard Dr. J. L. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. K. Dey, learned Standing counsel, N. F. Railway, appearing for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21.05.2015, passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati, in Original Application (O.A.) No. 040/00047/2014 (Annexure-4), whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Challenge is also made in the writ petition to the Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 30.08.2012, Inquiry report dated 06.04.2013, Order imposing penalty of removal from service dated 30.07.2013 and the appellate order dated 20.11.2013 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the imposition of penalty.

3. On 15.06.2012, in Borahu (BRHU) Railway Station (Lumding Railway Division), the 15959 Up Kamrup Express entered Line No. 3 instead of Line No. 2 where Brake Van of Up Amoni Goods train was standing and it was only due to application of brake by the Loco Pilot that a collision was averted. In view of the above, the General Manger, N.F. Railway, had constituted a fact finding inquiry committee called Coordinating Head of Department (CHOD) Committee on 15.06.2012 comprising of the Chief Safety Officer (CSO), Chief Operation Manager (COM) and Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer (CSTE). The CHOD Committee had submitted the report on 04.07.2012, which was accepted by the General Manager. As per the report, such an event took place because of signal failure caused by electrical tampering of the circuit and as the petitioner was working at BRHU station at the time of the incident, he was a party to the electrical circuit tampering as he admitted in the inquiry conducted that he might have been seen by the Assistant Station Master at the end of the platform where West Location Hut is located.

4. A Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 30.08.2012 was thereafter issued by the competent authority of the Railway proposing to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short, “1968 Rules”) and, accordingly, an Article of charge was framed against the petitioner which is annexed to the said Memorandum as Annexure-I. Statement of imputation of misconduct was also enclosed thereto as Annexure II. Annexure-III of the Memorandum of Charge-sheet, which refers to the list of documents by which the Article of Charge framed against the petitioner was sought to be established, contains a copy of the Inquiry report of CHOD. Under the heading “Annexure-IV” a list of witnesses is referred to, by which the Article of charge framed against the petitioner was proposed to be sustained but, significantly, it is indicated as “NIL”.

5. Dr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in absence of any witness having been examined during the inquiry proceeding, the reliance placed by the Inquiry Officer on the so-called CHOD report is wholly impermissible in law and the same had reduced the inquiry into a farce. The petitioner was not furnished with documents sought for to enable him to file an effective written statement and, therefore, there is violation of principle of natural justice and the provisions of 1968 Rules. It is submitted by him that, even otherwise, there was no basis for proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner was removed from service only on the basis of suspicion that as Point No. 102 did not work, the petitioner, being a senior technician having expertise in signal circuit, along with the other charge-sheeted employees, was individually and collectively responsible for the incident. He has further submitted that the petitioner had stated before the CHOD Committee that when the incident had occurred he was sitting inside No. 55812 Dn passenger train and only upon hearing the commotion that had ensued, he had rushed out to the platform and this