Disciplinary authorities may invoke special procedures for serious misconduct when conducting an inquiry is impractical, maintaining discipline and public safety.

ORDER

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Assailing the order dated 18.12.2023 in O.A.No.1202 of 2017 on the file of the fourth respondent viz., Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was recruited in the year 2012 in Southern Railways under Sports Quota as Junior Clerk in the office of the Additional Divisional Engineer Buildings, Madras Division. On 27.08.2024, there was an argument and physical altercation between the petitioner and one K.Manisekaran, Additional Engineer, Buildings, MAS, as a result of which the said K.Manisekaran was injured.

2.2. On the very next day, no enquiry was conducted into the incident and the 3^rd respondent / Disciplinary Authority issued a Notice of Dismissal from Service / Penalty Advice dated 28.08.2014. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the dismissal order, preferred an appeal before the Senior Divisional Engineer, Metro MAS / Appellate Authority, apologizing for the incident and requested that the penalty be cancelled and sought reinstatement into service. However, the appeal was rejected, vide appeal Advice dated 31.03.2015.

2.3. On 12.08.2015, a revision petition was preferred as against the Appeal Advice dated 31.03.2025 before the 2^nd respondent / Revisional Authority. However, the revision petition was also dismissed, vide Revision Advice dated 25.07.2016, without affording an opportunity for inquiry.

Therefore, the writ petitioner preferred an application in O.A.No.1202 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to set aside the Revision Advice dated 25.07.2016 and to direct the respondents therein to conduct departmental enquiry in accordance with Railway Rules, 1968. However, the said application was also dismissed, vide order dated 18.12.2023 holding that the special procedure under Rule 2 of the Railway Rules, 1968 had been followed, that the Appellate and Revisional Authorities had only confirmed the penalty and not enhanced it and that the penalty was imposed after following the relevant rules. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner was straight away dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by invoking Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 [in short “RS (D&A) Rules”] dated 28.08.2024 for the alleged incident dated 27.08.2014. The respondents did not even call for any explanation from the petitioner. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the 3^rd respondent / disciplinary authority followed the rules against bias, as he was one of the witness to the incident that occurred on 27.08.2014, that he sent a statement dated 28.08.2014 to the Senior DEN/Metro/MAS- Appellate Authority, narrating the incident and should have been permitted to issue the notice dated 28.08.2014 dismissing the petitioner from service. The Tribunal failed to consider that the Disciplinary Authority did not rely on independent material without exercising power under Rule 14(ii) of the RS (D&A) Rules and dispensing with the enquiry as mandated under Letter No.E(D&A) 92 RG6-48 dated 06.04.1992 issued by the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pension. The Tribunal has also failed to consider the procedure prescribed vide Annexure ‘A’ to Letter No.E(D&A)85 RG6/72 dated 06.10.1988 issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). While imposing the maximum major penalty, the Disciplinary Authority failed to provi