CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CORAM:

Reserved on 06.01.2026 Pronounced on 07.01 .2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Yerra Srinivasa Naidu, aged about 49 years, S/o. Late Y.Chinnam Naidu, Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (under compulsory retirement) Waltair Division, East-Coast Railway, Andhra Pradesh (A.P.), Resident of: 37-11-50, PRR Gardens, Visakhapatnam (Urban) Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-

5 3 0 0 0 7 . VERSUS ……Applicant

1. Union of India, represented by General Manager, E.Co.Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist. Khurda.

2. Principal Chief Operations Manager, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-

751017.

3. Addl. Divisional Railway Manager (Optns), East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

4. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), East Coast Railway, Waltair, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

5. Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast Rly.

Waltair, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. C.A.Rao, Counsel For the respondentOs R : MDr . RE. S .RPa tnaik, Counsel PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

It is the case of the applicant that while he was continuing as Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot/Electrical/E.Co.Rly/VSKP, due to his illness, he remained absent from duty from 11.08.2013 to 13.12.2013, as a result of which, he was proceeded under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 vide memorandum dated 26/30.12.2013. According to him the Disciplinary Authority without providing any document, proceeded in the matter ex parte and passed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service with grant of compassionate allowance vide order dated 20.05.2014. After obtaining the punishment order under RTI Act, 2005, he submitted mercy appeal on 22.07.2020 under Rule 17 to 20 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968. Since, no decision was taken thereon, the applicant approached the CAT, Hyderabad Bench in OA No.

829/2020, which was disposed of on 16.12.2020 with direction to dispose of the appeal of the applicant. The Appellate Authority in order dated 01.03.2021 held that the appeal preferred by the applicant is barred by limitation, however, in compliance of the order the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal, he considered the same but rejected without due application of mind. Thereafter, the applicant preferred revision on 18.04.2021 and, according to the applicant, the Revisional Authority without application of mind rejected the same in order dated 08.12.2021. It is in the above circumstances, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the following “r(ae)l iAedfms:i t the Original Application, call for the records, after hearing both the sides, quash the order dt. 20.05.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority (under Annexure-A/3) and order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the appellate authority (under Annexure-A/5) and order dt. 08.12.2021 passed by the revisional authority (under Annexure-A/7) and all consequential benefit is to be extended arising out of the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal;

And pass such other orders which will deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

2. The grounds of challenge, as stated in the pleadings and highlighted in course of hearing by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant are that after being recovered from illness immediately on 21.07.2020 the applicant submitted all the medical certificates in support of his illness praying to allow him to join duty and, in turn, he was intimated that he has already been imposed, at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is stated that the Disciplinary Authority framed the charge in a routine manner without application of mind and the charge has never been served upon the applicant. The IO held the inquiry ex parte in violation of Rule 6, 9 (10), 9(23) and Rule 26 of the RS (DA) Rules, 1968 providing the method a