By the Court.—Heard Shri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri N.L. Srivastava appears for respondent No. 1.

2. Shri Parshu Ram-respondent No. 1 filed Original Application No. 609 of 2002 in Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to set aside the order dated 7.8.2001 passed by the Divisional Operating Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad removing him from service; the order dated 28.1.2001 passed by the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad dismissing the appeal under Rule 18 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the order dated 8.4.2002 by which the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad dismissed his revision under Rule 25 of the Rules, but modified the punishment and substituted it with compulsory retirement in place of removal from service.

3. Shri Parshu Ram was serving as Head Clerk at Naini Railway Station of Northern Railways. He made complaints against the Station Manager Shri D.C. Misra of insult, humiliation and intimidation to National Commission of SC, ST and State Commission for SC and ST and lodged an FIR in April, 2000 under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention for Atrocities) Act, and the provisions of IPC. He was transferred in December, 1999, to Chunar Railway Station.

4. In July, 2000 he was served with charge-sheet dated 5.7.2000 with substance of allegations that he spent only six months during his posting at Chunar Station. He was not serious towards his duties and was negligent in performance of his responsibilities. His behaviour with fellow employee was not cordial. He was habitual of coming late and leaving duties before the close of the duty hours. He never stayed at Chunar, whereas housing allowance of Rs. 295/- was paid to him every month. He had availed 10 days’ casual leave, as well as gazetted leave on 12.4.2000 and 21.4.2000 against the leave rules applicable to him. He did not give any noting of his earn leave and sick leave of the period April-May, 2000, and availed the entire salary. He was also charged with leaving after duty hours on 2.5.2000 and thereafter reporting sick at Naini on 3.5.2000, whereas the medical facilities were available at Chunar and for availing excess of Rs. 40/- in travelling allowance in December, 1999, and for travelling for 20 days without any pass, when he was absent in 5 months, only a period of 25 days.

5. The disciplinary action was challenged on the ground that he was not supplied with copies of the document relied by enquiry officer in proof of the charges and was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The enquiry officers were in the administrative control of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. They were not impartial and independent. Their actions reflected their biased attitude. The order of compulsory retirement was also challenged on the ground that penalty is disproportionate to the guilt, and further that the findings regarding guilt are not based on any reliable evidence.

6. The Tribunal found that there was no difficulty in supplying the documents to him even on an oral demand. The copies of the relevant documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not given to the petitioner before the start or during the course of enquiry. They were supplied to him by registered post on 22.7.2000 causing prejudice to him in as much as he could not file his replies nor could cross-examine the witnesses.

7. The Tribunal further found that the allegations that since the applicant did not withdraw the criminal case against Shri D.C. Misra, the respondents were not acting independently and impartially. The Divisional Railway Manager initially replaced Shri L.D. Singh as enquiry officer by Shri Behari Ram. On the retirement of Shri Behari Ram, Shri R.N. Sagar, Station Superintendent, Kanpur Central was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 4.5.2001. All the three enquiry officers, however, did not act impartially in the proceedings of the enquiry.