(Reserved on 27.11.2025)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR this the 09th day of January, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Original Application No. 708 of 2021 N.K. Shrivastava, S/o Shri B.P. Shrivastava, date of birth 5.11.1961, Occupation – Chief Law Assistant, Coach Rehabilitation Work Shop, Bhopal, R/o 122, Naveen Nagar Colony, Ashbagh, behind Hind Convent School, Bhopal (MP) -

462010. …….Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Shri Dharmanshu Singh through video conferencing V E R S U S

1 Union of India through the General Manager, West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur, M.P - 482001.

2. The Senior Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Kota (Rajasthan) - 324001. …Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri D.S. Baghel O R D E R By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

In the present original application, the applicant has challenged the second charge sheet dated 20.05.2021 (Annexure A- 19) and consequential order dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure A-22)

appointing the Inquiry Officer.

2. Initially, the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 10.11.2008 which was challenged by the applicant in OA No. 258/2009 on the ground that the said charge sheet was issued by a non-competent authority. After taking into consideration the relevant rules and Railway Board’s letter dated 04.08.1997, the Tribunal vide order dated 18.04.2011 set aside the charge sheet dated 10.11.2008 on being satisfied that the authority who had issued the charge sheet was not the competent authority and liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh charge sheet to the applicant by a competent authority. Against the order of the Tribunal, the respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11524/2011 which was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court at Jaipur vide judgment dated 16.02.2021 (Annexure A-16) and upheld the order of the Tribunal by observing that the competent authority to issue the charge sheet would be additional Divisional Railway Manager or Senior Divisional Personnel Officer and would not be Senior Deputy General Manager. The Hon’ble High Court has further observed that the Tribunal while quashing the charge sheet issued against the respondent no. 1 has given liberty to the petitioners to issue fresh charge sheet by the competent authority as per rules. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 20.05.2021 (Annexure A-18) withdrawn the charge sheet dated 10.11.2008 and in compliance of the observation of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court, another charge sheet dated 20.05.2021 (Annexure A- 19). The applicant filed his reply dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure A-21) and on being not satisfied with the said reply, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.07.2021 has appointed the Inquiry Officer (Annexure A-22). Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant original application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the charge sheet dated 20.05.2021 has been issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, who is a non-competent authority as per Rule 8 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant is working as Chief Law Assistant in legal set-up, hence, as per the Railway Board letter dated 09.03.2006, since the legal set-up being under the administrative control of Additional General Manager, the A.G.M, W.C.R, Jabalpur is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the applicant. Thus, the charge sheet dated 20.05.2021 deserves to be quashed being without jurisdiction.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the charge sheet dated 20.05.2021 is also violative of RBE 171/1993 dated 01.12.1993 as this charge sheet has been issued on the same facts after withdrawing the first charge sheet dated 10.11.2008. The order regarding cancellation of charge sheet dated 10.11.2008 does not disclose any intentio