Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to natural justice principles. Acquittal in related criminal cases warrants reconsideration of departmental actions.

JUDGMENT

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2971/2013, titled Karnail Singh v. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway & Ors., dismissing the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein with the following findings:

“In view of the peculiar facts of this case, in this OA only the order dated 12.12.2012 is under challenge and said order dated 12.12.2012 is a well considered and detailed order which has been produced as Annexure A/4 at pages 21 to 30 of the paper book. As the said order is well considered order, we do not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the applicant in challenging the said order. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, the OA is devoid of merit.

Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Briefly stated, the facts in which the present petition arises are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Railway Department on the post of Loco Cleaner on 08.03.1996, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot at the Ambala Cantonment.

3. While working as Assistant Loco Pilot at Ambala, a charge- sheet under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules , 1968 („the Rules‟) was issued against petitioner on 19.04.2007, by Shri. S.P. Singh, the then Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (O&F), Ambala. The same was duly received by the petitioner and contained the following Article of Charge:

“On 03.10.2006 you entered into the Chamber of ADME(O) Ambala at12.30 hours and while abusingly asked him to get his penalty waived of, which had been given to him under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, otherwise he will finished you and your family and in the same you told the Inquiry Officer. Upon noticing your aforesaid violent behavior, you were advised to remain cool and made him understand that he should prefer an appeal before the competent authority and after this you leave from Chamber.

On 05.10.2006 at about 01:10 pm you again came into Chamber and while misbehaving abused him and threatened him as well as that issued get his punishment reduced by asking CDME otherwise he will kill his family. The above officer told him to go out of his office peacefully and you expressed your violent dissentment and went away. After this you have threatened him on mobile by which you are hereby guilty for misbehaving, threatening, using unparliament language on the senior officers.

You are hereby violated the Rule 3.1 Para (i),(ii) & (iii) of the Railways Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1966.”

4. This Charge Sheet was issued pursuant to a complaint received from Mr. R.K. Saini, Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (ADME). Pertinent to mention is that based on the same incidents, prosecution under Sections 145 , 147 and 179 of the Railways Act , 1989 („ ‟) was also initiated and Crl. Case No. 2094-2, titled State of Haryana v. Karnail Singh , was instituted against the petitioner.

5. In the departmental proceedings, though Sh. B.B. Suri, Senior Loco Inspector, Ambala was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, he was replaced by Sh. Narain Singh.

6. The Inquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner on 12.07.2008, 10.09.2008 and 14.11.2008, however, the petitioner did not join the inquiry proceedings. Resultantly, an ex-parte Inquiry Report dated 14.01.2009 was submitted. A c