B. Srirama Naik, Vs Union of India

B. SRIRAMA NAIK,, S/O SOMLANAIK AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC RETIRED CSTE/CN/N/MS, (SAG, GROUP 'A' SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RESIDENT OF D..NO.350-L, BOSU ROAD, PARECHARLA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN-522009

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (ESTABLISHMENT), MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶15

THE DIRECTOR/EO I, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶16

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAILNILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD-500025

¶17

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, , PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600003

¶18

THE SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAILNILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD-500025

¶19

THE DEPUTY CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER S AND T, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAILNILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD-500025.

¶20

2

¶21

THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER GAZ, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 22.04.2026 made in OA/020/56/2026 by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and Charge Memorandum issued in file No. E(0) I2025/PU-2/SR/27 dated 21.07.2025, declare and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and without jurisdiction

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings issued pursuant to the Charge Memorandum No.E(0)I2025/PU-2/SR/27 dated 21.07.2025 and suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 passed in OA/020/56/2026 by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.G TRINADHA RAO

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 19288/2026

¶34

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

¶35

Heard Sri G.Trinadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner was issued the charge memo dated 21.07.2025.

¶37

Challenging the charge memo, OA/020/56/2026 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench on the grounds inter-alia that of lack of jurisdiction of the authority which issued the charge memo; and that the proceedings were initiated after the superannuation of the petitioner, which could not be initiated.

¶38

The Tribunal has disposed of the OA giving liberty to the applicant to raise all his grievances before the respondents, who have also been directed to complete the disciplinary enquiry by passing final order within a specified period.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contentions raised and the grounds of challenge to the charge memo have not been considered by the Tribunal and if those grounds were considered and accepted after affording opportunity of hearing on the merits, there would be no occasion to hold enquiry.

¶40

4

¶41

The relevant part of the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the Tribunal

¶42

is reproduced as under:

¶43

“.................

¶44

When the matter has been taken up for hearing, the applicant’s counsel submits that the Respondents, in compliance with the Order of this Tribunal, dated 13.03.2026 and 23.01.2026, have released the applicant’s provisional pension. Further, the enquiry pursuant to the charge memorandum, dated 21.07.2025, is under process.

¶45

We have rejected the interim relief, at the admission stage itself.

¶46

In view of the above submission, the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary enquiry by passing final order within six months of the date of receipt of the Order. The law of limitation in respect of the applicant’s litigations/grievances is kept open. The applicant is at liberty to raise all his grievances, as averred in the O.A., before the Respondents.

¶47

In the above terms, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.”

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter may be

¶49

remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the OA after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

¶50

We have considered the aforesaid submissions. We are of the view that the grounds raised to challenge the charge memo deserved consideration by the Tribunal on merits, which has not been done. The petitioner has been directed to approach the authority pursuant to the charge memo without adjudicating the lis on merits. If the contentions were considered on merits and found favour there would be no need of enquiry proceedings.

¶51

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 22.04.2026 and the direction issued thereunder in para-5 are

¶52

5

¶53

set aside. The Tribunal shall consider the OA on its merits and decide the same as expeditiously as possible by giving opportunity to the parties, including of the counter affidavit.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the impugned order the respondents are proceedings with the enquiry.

¶55

If it be so, the liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file appropriate application for interim relief before the learned Tribunal, which if so filed shall also be considered by the Tribunal.

¶56