CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00737/2015 DATED THIS THE 03^rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 HON’BLE SHRI DR.K.B.SURESH, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (A)

M.Gabriel S/o.Barnabas Aged about 53 years Loco Pilot (Passenger)

South Western Railway, Hubli Residing at No.53 Vinuthana Colony Near ABM Church, Gadag Road Hubli. …..Applicant (By Advocate Sri T.N.Swamy)

Vs.

1. The Union of India Represented by its General Manager South Western Railway, Hubli.

2. The Chief Operational Manager Revision Authority South Western Railway, Hubli.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager Appellate Authority Divisional Office South Western Railway, Hubli.

4. The Sr.Divisional Mechanical Engineer(Power)

Disciplinary Authority South Western Railway, Hubli.

….Respondents (By Advocate Sri.J.Bhaskar Reddy)

O R D E R (PER HON’BLE SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (ADMN)

The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:

“Quash and set aside the order bearing No.H/M.348/I/HPT dated 12/4/2013 issued by the 4^th respondent Annexure-A11 and the order bearing No.H/P.90/N/2013/MG dated 24/7/2013 issued by the 3^rd respondent Annexure-A14 and the order bearing No.SWR/P/HS/227/MG (UBL) dated 22/7/2015 Annexure-A18 passed by the 2^nd respondent with all the consequential and monetary benefits.”

2. It is submitted that the applicant joined the services as Loco Khalasi in July

1983 and received, from time to time, promotions to various posts such as Engine Cleaner, 2^nd Fireman, Diesel Assistant, Driver(Goods), Sr. Goods Driver and finally as Passenger Driver(Loco Pilot Passenger) on 31.12.2009. While working as Loco Pilot, he was placed under suspension on 1.9.2012 which was subsequently revoked vide order dtd.11.9.2012(Annexures-A1 & A2). The applicant was issued with charge memorandum by the 4^th respondent under Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules,1968 on 15.10.2012(Annexure-A3). The charges primarily relate to his failure to stop the train at Virapur Station and it passed the main line starter of Virapur Station at ‘ON’ position. On receipt of the charge memo, the applicant submitted his explanation on 29.10.2012 denying the allegations(Annexure-A4). However, the 4^th respondent decided to proceed with the departmental proceedings and appointed the enquiry officer. According to the applicant, the allegations made against him leads to SPAD(Signal Passing At Danger) and as per the railway accident manual, if the accident is classified as H1, the said accident is required to be intimated to various authorities. Though the case of the applicant is classified as H1, it was not intimated to the authorities as required. It was also not reported to the Commissioner of Railway Safety. He has also referred to various actions to be taken in such cases in terms of the accident manual.

3. The applicant further submits that the inquiring authority is lower in grade than that of the Members of the fact finding committee. As per the Railway Board clarification, the inquiring authority should be superior in status than that of the committee members of the fact finding committee. He further submits that the inquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry fairly and properly. He proceeded without furnishing the relevant documents sought for by the applicant. He also examined and cross examined the witnesses in the guise of clarification. None from the fact finding committee has been examined. In the enquiry, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and the applicant examined himself and those persons have been re-examined by the inquiry officer as would be evident from the proceedings(Annexure-A6). At the conclusion of the evidence on 18.3.2013, the applicant requested 15 days’ time to submit defence brief. But without considering his request, the inquiry officer submitted his report on the next day. The 4^th respondent forwarded the report of the IO to the applicant on 22.3.2013. He submitted a letter on 28.3.2013(Annexure-A