IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25848 of 2024 Union of India and others …. Petitioners Mr.P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D.R. Bhokta,CGC -versus- N. Mani …. Opp. Party CORAM:

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

04.02.2025 Order No.

06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

The Union of India and others have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 99 of 2017 in allowing the Original Application and setting aside the proceeding instituted against the opposite party N. Mani vide charge memorandum dated 21.08.2015 and also the punishment order dated 28.01.2016 and the subsequent order of the appellate and revisional authority dated 09.05.2016 and 07.09.2017 respectively.

The opposite party filed Original Application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’ in short) bearing O.A. No. 99 of 2017 under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act with a prayer to for declare the initiation of the proceeding vide charge sheet under Annexure-3, the punishment order vide Annexure-8, the appellate order confirming the punishment and revisional order dated 07.09.2017 of the Chief Personnel Officer, Bhubaneswar as without jurisdiction and for quashing the same.

From the factual scenario, it appears that the opposite party, who was working as Office Superintendent/Control Office under Sr. DOM(M), Waltair, was allotted with Type-II Quarter bearing No. 592/1 with effect from 23.12.2005. A surprise door to door joint verification by the nominated Committee was conducted on 27.06.2015, 29.06.2015 and 03.07.2015 at the Rail Area of Visakhapatnam and it was found that the allotted quarter of the opposite party was under unauthorized occupation and it has been sub-let. Basing on such fact finding report of the Committee, the Senior Divisional Engineer (HQ) vide his letter dated 08.07.2015 recommended for taking action against the erring Railway employees including the opposite party and thereafter vide letter dated 06.08.2015, the Chairman, Optg. Sub-Qrs. Committee -cum- Asst. Optns. Manager (G), East-Coast Railway, Waltair instructed the Divisional Personnel Officer, East-Coast Railway for cancellation of the allotment of quarters, initiation of eviction proceeding and for recovery of the penal rent from the erring Railway employees including the opposite party and consequently, the opposite party was issued with major penalty as per Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (in short, ‘Rules, 1968’) vide memorandum dated 21.08.2015 by the Senior Divisional Optns. Manager, East-Coast Railways, Waltair with a direction to submit written statement of defence. The opposite party was also duly served with article of charges, statement of imputations, list of documents and witnesses to be relied upon. After receipt of such documents including articles of charges, the opposite party submitted her explanation in which she denied all the charges. Considering the explanation of the opposite party, the disciplinary authority in exercise of the powers under Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1968, appointed Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the opposite party. The Inquiry Officer conducted enquiry and the Senior Divisional Optns. Manager (M) vide letter dated 11.01.2016 issued show cause notice enclosing the enquiry report requiring the opposite party to submit her reply/representation and the opposite party submitted a detailed reply to the show cause stating that the Inquiry Officer did not consider the facts precipitated during course of enquiry and mechanically held that the charges are proved. It is further stated that the Inquiry Officer instead of basing his conclusion on material evidence and facts arrived at, forcibly came to hold that the charges seem