CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR Original Application No.310/2023 Pronounced on : 13.03.2026 Reserved on : 04.02.2026 CORAM HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE Dr. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)

Sanjeev Kumar Charan S/o Shri Awardan Charan, aged 55 years, R/o C- 58, Veer Durgadas Nagar, Behind Sessions Court, Pali Marwar-306401, Rajasthan.

CLA, under functional control of Chief Claims Officer, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

…..Applicants By Advocate : Mr. S.K. Malik Versus

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway HQ, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

2. Additional General Manager (AGM), Western Railway, HQ Office, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

3. Chief Claims Officer, Commercial Branch, Western Railway, HQ Office, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

4. Dy. Chief Claims Officer, Commercial Branch, Western Railway HQ, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

...... Respondents By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Tiwari ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

Being aggrieved by Memorandum SF No.5 dated 12.10.2017 (Annexure-A/1) issued under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 [hereinafter referred as ‘RSDA Rules’] and penalty order of removal from service dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure-A/2) as also the order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure-A/3) passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the applicant, the applicant has preferred this OA to quash and set aside the above Memorandum and orders with a prayer to reinstate him on the post of Chief Law Assistant with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was issued a charge sheet for major penalty under Rules of the RSDA Rules on 12.10.2017 by the Deputy CCO. As per statement of articles of charges, the applicant while working as Chief Law Assistant/CCG was in possession of forged plastic medical identity card with names, signatures and stamps of Railway medical authorities with intention to avail the benefit of medicines. The applicant denied the charges in his reply dated 09.11.2017 (Annexure-A/4). Thereafter, Deputy CCO appointed Presenting as also Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted its report vide letter dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure-A/7), against which the applicant filed a representation dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure-A/8). Since Deputy CCO was not competent to impose major penalty, he referred the matter to CCO for consideration, who after considering the inquiry report, the representation of the charged officer and other records, found the charge proved against the applicant vide order dated 20.12.2018 and imposed upon him the penalty of removal from service with immediate. The appeal filed by the applicant against the penalty order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

2.2 Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we heard the arguments on the preliminary objection with regard to competency of the officer issuing the charge memorandum to the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that in view of provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the RSDA Rules read with Rule 2 (1)(c)(iii), the Deputy CCO cannot issue a charge sheet against the applicant, therefore, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the matter of Union of India vs. N.B. Joshi (Writ Petition No.6710 of 2003) decided on 19.04.2018 as also the judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.258/2009 titled as Narayan Kumar Srivastava vs. Union of India &

Ors., decided on 18.04.2011.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 8 (2) of RSDA Rules permits the disciplinary authority to issue a charge sheet notwithstanding that he is not competent under these rules to impose a major penalty. Learned counsel for