O R D E R (O R A L)

Per Sunil Kr. Sinha, Member [Admn]

1. Applicant has preferred this OA being aggrieved by the order of Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager dated 06.10.2016 cancelling the earlier order of punishment dated 21.07.2016 imposing penalty of reduction by one stage for six months with cumulative effect and the order dated 07.10.2016 appointing the Inquiry Officer to conduct the proceeding against applicant. The applicant has prayed for following reliefs in the OA:-

“To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 06.10.2016 and 07.10.2016 as contained in Annexure A/4 and A/5 being null, void, ab-initio, wrong and contrary to the provisions and settled principle of law.

To declare the process of enquiry for imposing fresh punishment as shown in the order dated 06.10.2016 and 07.10.2016 including appointment of Inquiry Officer for the same allegation and charge sheet in which punishment has already been imposed by the competent authority vide Annexure A/3 as null, void, ab-initio, wrong and contrary to the provisions and settled principle of law.”

2. Applicant’s case as set out in the OA is that he was working as Senior Booking Clerk in Ara when he was issued a charge sheet on 30.05.2016 under Rule-9 of the Railway Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (SDCM), East Central Railway, Danapur. Applicant submitted his reply on 20.06.2016 denying the allegation and the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager imposed punishment of reduction of one stage for six months with cumulative effect on 21.07.2016. Subsequently, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager vide order dated 06.10.2016 cancelled the order dated 21.07.2016 on the ground that the punishment was awarded without holding the departmental enquiry. SDCM also appointed Inquiry Officer vide order dated 07.10.2016. Applicant has pleaded in this OA that after issuing the order of penalty on 21.07.2016, SDCM could had no power to cancel own order. Therefore, the orders cancelling the penalty and appointing inquiry officer were against the rules/laws.

3. Respondents filed written statement in which they maintained that applicant had no cause of action to agitate before the Tribunal at this stage because the punishment awarded to applicant had already been quashed and set aside. That applicant while working as Chief Commercial Clerk at Ara station, on 10.12.2015 was found committing financial irregularities. Accordingly a major penalty charge sheet was issued to him on 30.05.2016 under Rule-9 of Railway Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The then Senior Divisional Commercial Manager awarded a penalty of reduction of one stage for six months without holding a disciplinary inquiry under Rule-9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968. As major penalty was imposed without holding inquiry, it was in contravention of the Rules. Hence, Senior DCM cancelled that order and appointed inquiry officer to conduct fresh inquiry. After completion of inquiry a final decision would be taken by the disciplinary authority.

4. Heard. Learned counsel for applicant submits that disciplinary authority had passed order of punishment based on the statement of defence filed by applicant. Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction of one stage for six months with cumulative effect. The order of disciplinary authority was in exercise of his quasi judicial power. After passing the final order, Disciplinary Authority had become functus officio. He could not have passed any further order with regard to the disciplinary proceeding. Hence, the order of Disciplinary Authority to cancel the punishment order and to conduct the proceeding further was against the law. He refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of N.S. Bhadauriya vs. State of M.P. (2013 SCC OnLine MP 8320) and submits that the order dated 06.10.2017 and 07.10.2017 were void, ab-initio.

5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary a