Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—The instant petition has been filed by Union of India through its Department of Railways alongwith officers of the Railway Department against the judgment and order 18.5.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1093 of 2006 by which the original application filed by the first respondent (Rayees-Ul-Haque) was allowed; the major penalty charge-sheet dated 12.7.2004; removal order dated 31.1.2006; and the appellate order dated 16.6.2006 were quashed.

2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent was an Inquiry-cum-reservation clerk posted at Gorakhpur. A minor penalty charge-sheet was served upon him on 11.3.2004 alleging that from April 2003 to June 2003, he had issued 50 concession tickets on forged concession vouchers thereby causing loss to the Railways. The first respondent denied the allegations. After considering the reply, the Assistant Commercial Manager vide order dated 19.4.2004 imposed punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of six months temporarily and directed for recovery of Rs. 26,636/- from the first respondent in lieu of the loss suffered by the Railways. This order of punishment was not subjected to appeal by the first respondent. Thereafter, on 12.7.2004, the first respondent was served with a major penalty charge-sheet essentially on the same set of facts that is of issuing concessional tickets on forged concession vouchers, but by leveling other serious charges of misconduct.

3. Against issuance of major penalty charge-sheet, the first respondent filed a representation before the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager on 4.8.2004 by claiming that on the same set of facts two disciplinary proceeding cannot be drawn more so when the earlier proceeding has already been finalized.

4. In the meantime, on 13/16.8.2004, the Assistant Divisional Manager/Reviewing Authority exercising power under Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short Rules, 1968) gave notice to the first respondent to submit reply as to why the punishment imposed be not enhanced to one of reduction of pay to the minimum of basic pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The first respondent submitted his reply to the said notice. However, on 16.2.2005, the Reviewing Authority instead of proceeding further on the notice dated 13/16.8.2004, canceled the earlier charge-sheet of minor punishment dated 11.3.2004 as also the punishment order dated 19.4.2004 by reserving right to issue a fresh charge-sheet.

5. As already a fresh major penalty charge-sheet had been issued to the petitioner, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry. Before the enquiry officer, the first respondent leveled allegation of bias and made a request for change of enquiry officer. The request of the first respondent to change enquiry officer was rejected on 12.8.2005. In the meantime, the enquiry officer directed the first respondent to submit his defense. The first respondent submitted his defense statement. The enquiry officer, thereafter, proceeded with the enquiry; recorded statement of witnesses; allowed cross-examination of the witnesses and submitted an enquiry report on 9.11.2005, which was supplied to the petitioner on 14.11.2005, against which representation was submitted on 28.11.2005. On 31.1.2006, by order of removal, the services of the first respondent were terminated. Against which the first respondent filed statutory appeal which was dismissed on 16.6.2006.

6. Aggrieved by removal from service as well as dismissal of his appeal, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 1093 of 2006.

7. On the basis of the pleadings and submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Tribunal framed four questions for determination: (i) Whether second charge-sheet on the same very charges which have already been looked into and punishment has been inflicted, the currency of the punishment has expired, ca