The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of issues already adjudicated in prior administrative or judicial proceedings. A delinquent employee has no vested, absolute right to choose any specific Defence Assistant, and judicial interference in ongoing disciplinary inquiries is limited to cases of patent illegality or manifest injustice.

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and final order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench at Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur, in O.A. No. 203/669/2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the petitioner in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without proper appreciation of the factual matrix, applicable statutory rules, and the settled principles of natural justice.

2. Subject matter in brief is that the present petition arises out of denial of a fair opportunity to the petitioner, a Railway officer with an unblemished record, in a departmental inquiry initiated pursuant to a Central Bureau of Investigation trap case. The petitioner’s request to engage a suitable Defence Assistant, particularly a retired Railway employee, has been repeatedly rejected by the respondents in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without recording any reasons. Despite subsequent developments and the coming into force of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, which expressly permit such assistance subject to reasoned consideration, the respondents failed to reconsider the petitioner’s request and proceeded with the inquiry. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to filing of the present petition.

3. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in the present writ petition:-

“i. To kindly call for the entire original record pertaining to the impugned proceedings and the orders passed by the respondent authorities, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court;

ii. To kindly quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench at Circuit Sitting: Bilaspur in O.A. No. 203/669/2023, and allow the Original Application filed by the petitioner;

iii. To kindly direct the respondents to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law, only after providing the petitioner a fair, reasonable, and effective opportunity of defence, including permission to engage the Defence Assistant of his choice.

iv. To kindly pass any other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit, proper, and just by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order awarding costs in favour of the petitioner.”

4. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, a dedicated Railway officer serving as ADEE (O.P.)/RIG/SECR with an unblemished service record, was arrested on 01.08.2015 in a Central Bureau of Investigation trap case, which allegation he has consistently denied. Thereafter, a charge memorandum dated 03.08.2016 was issued initiating major penalty proceedings against him. During the course of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, as his request to engage an experienced retired Railway officer, Shri M.V.D. Satyanarayana, as Defence Assistant was arbitrarily rejected. The said request was also not accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2019 on a narrow interpretation of the applicable rules. It is further the case of the petitioner that subsequent developments revealed that retired Railway employees had been permitted to act a