ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“i. to issue a suitable order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority (filed as Annexure No. A-1 and A-2 respectively with 2 | P a g e Compilation – II to this Original Application) passed by the respondent No. 2.

ii. to issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

iii. to award cost of the original application to the applicant.”

3. A synopsis of the controversy prevailing in the instant case is that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondents and order dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby a punishment of stopping the next increment of the applicant for a period of four years was imposed upon the applicant.

Alleging the orders to be illegal, arbitrary, biased and malafide, the applicant, by way of the instant OA, seeks quashing of the same along with a direction to the respondents to revert the punishment and pay him the entire consequential monetary benefits.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the records.

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed in the year 1992 on the post of Assistant Electric Driver and also elected as Additional Secretary in the Loco Branch, North Central Railway Men’s Union, Tundala, Division Allahabad in the year 1993. On

01.03.2005, he was served with a chargesheet with the allegation that from 09.01.2005 to 15.01.2005, the applicant was given L.R. with other drivers but some of them complained that L.R. performed by the applicant is forged and applicant has never performed the L.R.

duty with them. Thereafter, one Shri Raj Kumar, who was the batchmate of Shri A A Azad (who was personally biased officer with the applicant) was appointed as Enquiry Officer to investigate the case. No documents were supplied to the applicant nor was the chargesheet properly served upon him. Service upon the applicant 3 | P a g e was presumed on the basis of pasting. It was next argued by the applicant’s counsel that inquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have not followed the basic requirement for concluding the enquiry. The inquiry report was submitted on the basis of false facts without concluding the inquiry in the manner laid down in the rules relating to this fact. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the inquiry report and argued that inquiry officer himself was of the view that inquiry could not be concluded. It was also argued that allegation leveled against the applicant regarding his conduct and behavior during the inquiry is false. In fact, misbehavior was done on the part of the witnesses and the presenting officer against the applicant and for this reason, one FIR was also lodged by the applicant against the above persons. Learned counsel further argued that had the applicant misbehaved with the official and witnesses or had he shown his revolver to them, as has been falsely alleged in the inquiry report, simple question arises as to why those persons did not lodge any FIR against the applicant. Since no such FIR or formal complaint was ever lodged, plea taken by the respondents in their inquiry report is completely baseless.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that inquiry was concluded without examining all the witnesses and also without affording opportunity of