CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CORAM:

Reserved on 04.12.2025 Pronounced on 10.1 2.2025 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

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

Siba Prasad Mishra, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Raj ( Kishore Mishra, at present working as TTI, under control of Senior CTI (I/C)/ East Coast Railway/ Khurda Road resident of Railway Qrs. No.603/B, Retanga Colony, P.O.Jatni, Dist. Khurda-752050.

……Applicant VERSUS

1. Union of India, represented through the General Manager, E.Co.Rly., Rail Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.-Khurda, Odisha.

2. Principal Chief Commercial Manager &

Revisionary Authority, E. Co. Rly., Rail Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.-Khurda, Odisha.

3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager &

Appellate Authority, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O.- Jatni, Dist.-Khurda-752050, Odisha.

4. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager &

Disciplinary Authority, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O.-Jatni, Dist.-

Khurda-752050.

5. Mr. A. K. Mallia, Deputy Chief Operations Manager (FO/S) & Inquiry Officer, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O Jatni, Dist.- Khurda-752050.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel For the respondentOs R : MDr . DE. S eRth y, Counsel PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

By filing this instant OA, the applicant has prayed to quash the Memorandum of charge dtd. 22.07.2019, Inquiry Report dated 06.02.2020, order of punishment dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority reducing his pay to lower level of pay in Sr.TC in Level-5 @ 35,900/- for a period of two years with Cumulative Effect., order of Appellate Authority dated 02.06.2020 and the order of the Revisional Authority dated 08.07.2020, upholding the punishment imposed by the DA, and consequently to direct the Respondents to restore him to his original pay with all consequential and financial benefits.

2. Contesting and objecting the case of the applicant, respondents filed their counter and the applicant has also filed the rejoinder.

3. In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant led much focus in support of the relief that Sri A.K.Mallia, who was working under the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Zone, ought not to have been appointed as Inquiry Officer and, therefore, the inquiry report andde hthores further action taken thereto are not sustainable being the rules and law. In this regard, he has also placeJd.K rrieslhiannac eK uomn atrhi e V so rUdOeIr &d Oatresd 19.06.2025 in OA

98/2020 ( .).

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that Sri Mallia was not working under the Chief Vigilance Officer. He has submitted that the applicant did not question the appointment of the IO starting from his appointment till conclusion by imposition of punishment nor has he pleaded as to how he was prejudiced by such appointment of Sri Mallia as IO. However, it is not the case of the respondents that the order of this Bench dated 19.06.2025 in OA 98/2020 has been challenged before any higher forum or any such application has been filed seeking review of the said order.

5. After due consideration of the arguments, we have perused the records. We have also gone through the order of this TJ.Krirbiusnhanla dKautemd ar1i9 .06.2025 in OA 98/2020 in the case of (supra). We find that in the said case, Sri A.K.Mallia was also appointed as Inquiry Officer and this Bench after takUinOgI n&o Oter os fV tsh eP rdaekciassiohn K ouf mthaer H Toann’bdloen A &pe Ox rCso, urt in the case of (2009) 2 SCC 541, and the decision of the coordinate Allahabad Bench of the Tribun“7a.l inE vOeAn N oth. 4o0u3g/h2 0th1e6 , hreelsdp aosn udnednetsr : in their objection to affidavit had submitted that Mr. A K Mallia, Enquiry Officer is not working under Vigilance Department but it is seen from the document annexed by them R/1 (Railway Vigilance Organization and its Role No. 103.4) that at Role 103.2 it is stated that at the level of Zonal Railways, the Vigilance Organizati