##PAGE1##

Reserved on 05.12.2025

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad

This the

22nd

day of December, 2025

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Original Application No. 904 of 2025

Sunil Singh Bora S/o Sri Krishna Singh Bora, Aged about 34 years,

R/o 224/A Chak Baura Trivani Nagar Naini Prayagraj – 211008.

……….. APPLICANT

By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar Singh

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,

Prayagraj – 211001.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, Jhansi Mandal Jhansi.

3. Deputy Chief Engineer (TMC) Line North Central Railway Jhansi.

.………RESPONDENTS

By Advocate: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, 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 quash the impugned Charge Sheet dated 31.07.2025 issued by the

Respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 1 to this OA)

(ii) To direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of

the applicant at his present place of posting.

RITU RAJ

SINGH

1 | P a ge

(iii) Issue any other and further writ, order or directions; which this

Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant.”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant

who is working in the respondents’ department challenging the SF 5

charge sheet dated 31.07.2025 issued by the respondent no 3 under

Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Seeking the quashing of the aforesaid charge sheet, the applicant has

proposed for a direction to the respondents to not initiate the

disciplinary proceedings against him claiming that the facts and

allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet are absolutely

vague and unreasonable. The applicant has contended that the charge

sheet has been issued by the respondents holding him responsible for

an accident but he has alleged that the accident did not take place due

to any fault on his part. By way of this OA, the applicant seeks

quashing of the charge sheet and seeks a direction to the respondents

to allow him to work peacefully in the department.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant

was appointed and posted on the post of Junior Engineer / TMC

Jhansi on 07.04.2022 and thereafter, he was posted on 20.10.2023 on

Machine DTS – 337 at Bharua Sumerpur Station Jhansi. It was

argued that the work and conduct of the applicant has always been

unblemished and satisfactory. It was further argued that when the

applicant was on duty as assistant supervisor on DGS – 337, an

accident took place at Antari Sithauli UP Road due to which some

minor defect occurred in DGS 337 and two persons namely

Mahendra Singh and Chitra Kumar, the incharge of machine received

minor injuries. Learned counsel argued that the accident took place

because of non-compliance of Red Flag signal by Machine No DUO

– 8155, non-visibility and sharp circular turn and also because there

RITU RAJ

SINGH

2 | P a ge

was no emergency break in machine DGS 337.The machine operator

Chitra Kumar applied breaks but due to deep slope, the machine

could not stop and collided with DUO 8155. Applicant explained all

these reasons in his reply dated 05.06.2025. Shri Buddhi Prakash and

Shri Sita Ram had also given their statements dated 05.06.2025 to the

respondent no 3 stating the cause of the accident. It was further

argued that on the same date the inquiry was conducted by the

AXN/TMC/L/JHS who has also reported the cause of the accident in

which minor damages of about Rs. 3000/- and minor injuries of two

employees have been reported. Without any show cause or

preliminary inquiry, the respondent no 3 suspended the appl