(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Arumughaswamy, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA seeking to set aside the Order of the 2nd respondent No.M/C.415/DAR/134/2016 dated 4.7.2016 read with Order No.M/C.415/DAR/134/2016 dated 17.2.2017 and the report bearing reference No.M/C.415/DAR/134/2016 dated 14.2.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
2. Heard both. Learned senior counsel Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy leading the counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant while working as Dy. Chief Ticketing Inspector in Chennai Division of Southern Railway was issued with a charge sheet dated 4.7.2016 for alleged unauthorised absence from duty for the period from 20.5.2015 to 13.8.2015. No preliminary enquiry notice was sent to the applicant held on 4.1.2017 and continued till 3.2.2017. The applicant was unwell and had, therefore, sought an adjournment of the regular proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. However, the IO without considering the request conducted the regular inquiry exparte on 02.2.2017 and concluded it on the same day itself without notice to defend and by examining a non-listed witness. As such the enquiry stands vitiated for want of reasonable opportunity to the applicant to defend herself and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
3. Ms.Sunitha Kumari, counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents had since considered the matter based on the representation received from the applicant and it is now proposed to set aside the exparte proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer with a direction to him to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the due procedure. Therefore, the respondents contend that the OA has to be disposed of according to law.
4. On perusal, it appears that the applicant along with other charged officials are facing enquiry on different charges and different OAs have been filed. Even though this Court has permitted the respondents to go ahead with the enquiry in the other OAs, it appears that the applicant and other delinquent had expressed their personal inconvenience for a particular date of hearing and sought leave for non-appearance. Inspite of this, the respondents held the enquiry in some cases which had been adjourned after three days and again it had been held exparte basis. Thereafter, within two days dismissal order had been communicated in some other connected case. Batch of cases have been filed in this regard.
5. Of course this is a case of unauthorised absence for 86 days. According to the applicant she had actually worked on that period for which she produced some documents. Anyhow it has to be seen by the Inquiry Officer. The counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that in the other cases exparte order had been withdrawn. The applicant has filed this OA to stay the inquiry proceedings and claiming the main relief to quash the inquiry proceedings. The respondents at this stage have issued show cause notice calling for the applicant's representation on the exparte report. The respondents have already agreed to withdraw the notice which was based on the exparte report. However, the setting aside the exparte proceedings would be subject to the condition that the applicant and others against whom enquiry was ordered would cooperate and attend the enquiry on the dates to be fixed by the Inquiry Officer. The applicants would be informed of the dates of enquiry in advance.
6. In the above background, it is seen that the respondents have very hurriedly disposed the matter as seen from the 8.2.2017 i.e., the impugned order on which the representation had been called for from the applicants. From this it is seen that the respondents have shown undue haste in trying to complete the enquiry without giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant. But at the same time it is also necessary that the applicant submit her for the enquiry to enable the authority to complete enquiry within a reasonable time. Considering the submission made by both sides and in order that there is no prejudice in the minds of the authority, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the the enquiry is commenced after 1.6.2017 subject to the convenience of the respondents by informing well in advance and dispose the matter as per the procedure known to law. The applicant is also hereby directed to not resort to any tactics or come up with any other reasons to postpone the enquiry and trouble this Court. Otherwise her conduct will be seriously viewed. With these observations OA is disposed of. No costs. (R.Ramanujam) (A.Arumughaswamy) Member(A) Member(J) 09.3.2017
Comments