AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J):
Mr. D.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:-
“8.1.That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass the direction to the Divisional Railway D.D.U. E.C.R. to decide the Manager Represenation dated 12-07-2026 (Annexure No.2) alongwith reminder application dated 15-07-2026 (Annexure No.3) as well as to change the I.O. Mr. Pathak and to decide the Representation dated 12-07-2026.
8.2.That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously further also be pleased to change the team of Inquiry, as the disciplinary authority as well as inquiry officer.
8.3.That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to stay the inquiry proceeding as the fully thing affected from criminal complaint placed by applicant's wife namely Nancy Kumari, as the consequence may not be passed fairly.
8.4.issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8.5.To award the cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a charge-sheet dated 18.05.2026 has been issued by the Divisional Electrical Engineer (disciplinary authority) regarding the alleged unauthorised absence of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the said charge-sheet has been issued following the transfer of the applicant from DDU to Ankorha to the post of Shunter-II. It is further submitted that the said action has been taken on account of a complaint made by the applicant against the disciplinary authority and that, due to prejudice on this ground, the charge-sheet has been issued. He further submits that the Inquiry Officer so appointed is also prejudiced and is working under the influence of the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the applicant seeks that the disciplinary proceedings be conducted by another competent authority. In this regard, a representation dated 12.07.2026 has been submitted before the appellate authority, i.e., the DRM/ADRM. Learned counsel for the applicant presses for a direction to decide the pending representation of the applicant by considering the grievances raised therein.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, since the inquiry proceedings are going on, the same may be allowed to be completed. It is further submitted that, if the applicant has any grievance regarding prejudice or mala fides, he has the option to avail himself of the appropriate remedy against the order passed.
Considering the submissions of the parties and the limited relief sought by the applicant with regard to taking a decision on the pending representation by the DRM/competent appellate authority, this Tribunal is of the view that the Original Application may be disposed of at this stage with a direction to the DRM/competent appellate authority to decide the representation dated 12.07.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from today. Till such order is passed, the respondents are restrained from proceeding further with the charge-sheet dated 18.05.2026.
Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands disposed of with the above-mentioned directions.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicant’s claim. All issues are left open for consideration by the respondents.
All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.