Tribunal's interference in disciplinary proceedings limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent procedural irregularity or natural justice violation.

ORDER

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

1.The applicant while working as ACTI was served with a charge sheet dated 14.02.2008 under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Pension) Rules 1993 and consequently, the disciplinary authority appointed the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. Thereafter, the applicant requested for change of Inquiry Officer on the ground of his being from vigilance department but the same was rejected vide order dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure A-5) and the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry proceeding and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority who forwarded a copy of inquiry report to the applicant vide letter dated 23.02.2010 (Annexure A-6. After receipt of copy of inquiry report, the applicant submitted his representation dated 10.03.2010 before the disciplinary authority (Annexure A-7). Thereafter, since the applicant was already superannuated, therefore, as per rules, complete DAR case of the applicant was forwarded to the Railway Board for final decision and consequently, the decision taken by the Hon’ble President in the matter was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 22.04.2014 (Annexure A-1). Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present original application.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the charges leveled against the applicant were vague. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that charges have been proved by the Inquiry Officer by conducting the inquiry proceeding ex-parte. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the earlier Inquiry Officer was appointed from the vigilance department, therefore, despite repeated request for change of the said Inquiry Officer, the respondents rejected the same and decided to partial re- inquiry in the matter by appointing another Inquiry Officer. Referring to Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Disciplinary Authority is not vested with any power to order partial re-inquiry, therefore, after change of Inquiry Officer, a complete fresh inquiry was required in the matter. Further, the disciplinary authority also failed to appreciate the fact that the representation towards the inquiry officer's report is not an empty formality, but the same is done with an aim to digress the directions of the disciplinary authority from his derivative conclusion from the report to the palliative path of fair consideration whereas, the disciplinary authority did not consider the points put forth by the applicant in his representation dated 10.03.2010 in its correct prospective and also did not assign any reason hence the action of the disciplinary authority is bad in law. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appeal of the applicant for change of Inquiry Officer was also rejected by passing a non-speaking order. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire action of the respondents in conducting the inquiry proceeding was since de-horse the rules and principles of natural justice, therefore, the same may be set aside and relief may be granted to the applicant.

3. The respondents have contested the OA and have filed reply. Referring to the contents of reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the charge sheet, a detailed inquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Inquiry Officer fixed the date of inquiry on 10.06.2008, 11.07.2008, 31.07.2008, 22.09.2008 and 14.10.2008 but the applic