Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


U.O.I. Thru' G.M., North Central Railway, Allahabad And Ors. v. C.A.T., Allahabad And Another - WRIT - A No. 4449 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1938 (24 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4449 of 2006

Union of India and others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Branch, Allahabad and another


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 326 of 1998 which had been filed for quashing the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty of deduction in rank for a period of five years and the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the Appeal filed by the claimant. The Tribunal by means of the aforesaid order allowed the claim petition and set aside the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 1.1.1998 passed by the Appellate Authority and further ordered that the applicant shall be restored to his original grade and pay scale and all the consequential benefits i.e. arrears of pay and allowances and shall also be considered for promotion to the higher post as if no penalty order has been passed for which the review DPC should be conducted.  

The Tribunal has recorded a finding that after the completion of the evidence of the defence witness, the Enquiry Officer called the employers witness Sri R.P. Agarwal who made certain statements and on the basis this statement findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding the guilt of the claimant. According to the Tribunal the copy of the deposition of the said witness was not even given to the claimant and the entire exercise of calling the said witness of the prosecution after the defence evidence was closed is nothing but a mockery of the enquiry proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Rule 9(18) of the Railway Service (D & A) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules') in support of his contention that it was permissible for the Enquiry Officer to call the prosecution witness even after the closure of the defence case.

A perusal of Rule 9(18) of the Rules clearly shows that new evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. It further stipulates that such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence, which has been produced originally. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to substantiate his claim that the Enquiry Officer could have called another witness under the aforesaid Rule 9(18) of the Rules. In our opinion, the witness was called only to fill up the gap in the evidence. Such being the position, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt/- 24.1.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.