Date 29.07.2021
To
The Inquiry Officer,
(Shri. B. R. Kishor, CLI,)
Nagpur Division, C. Rly
Reference:1) NGP /TRO/DAR/5/ADU/833. Dt:17.05.2021.
2) NGP/TRO/DAR/5/7/ADU/833, Dt 29.6.21
Hon. Sir,
Subject:- Observation Presentation on allegation in SF-5, attached contract, Request
submitted by erring employee, appointment of Inquiry Officer, action taken in
preliminary hearing,
Sir,
It is necessary to inform you that the refer charge memorandum to DE issued on
17.05.2021, was received by DE on 22.05.2021 without RUD. An application was put up before
the Hon. Disciplinary Authority (DA) on 01.06.2021 for the complaince of RUD and other
important documents. He received SF-7 with the letter of D/A sir on the dated 30/06/2021 but
RUD was not given. Again D.E. has put up an application before the Hon. D/A on dated 8.7.21,
but till the date, not given RUD. Now proceedings have been initiated which will certainly affect
the principle of reasonable opportunity/ chance of defense, so my observation on all the refer
charge memorandum is given as below .
OBSERVATION :1) Both Annexure-I and II, accompanying the Memorandum of SF-5 have the same
statement, whereas the Charges in Annexure I. And the full details of the allegation
should be in Annex II.
2) There is no mutual reconciliation in Annexure-III and IV, while the name of the author of
the RUD engaged in Annexure-lll. It should be in Annexure- lV, so that examination and
cross-examination of RUD can be done.
3) DE is directly charged with violation of 3.1(ii) of Railway Servant Conduct Rule without
mentioning the specific rules/instructions relating to the allegation, Railway Service
Conduct Rules, 1966, violation of rule 3.1(ii) is sustain only in case of violation of
specific rules/instructions related to the allegation. (Refer M.C para 3.( b))
4) The framed charges in the charge memorandum are not clear, that is, charges and
allegation are Vauge and Ambiguous since it is not clear in the charges that how much
distance & time with over speed run the train.
5) It might be beneficial to both DA & DE if Charge memorandum issued with the RUD, DE
could submit reply in detail with some other relevant material on which Hon. D/A could
come to this conclusion that inquiry is not required. This could save the time and money
of prosecution.
6) The rolling stock for which derailment has taken place is BOXNS type rolling stock which
is not seen permitted by CRS in Nagpur division but loaded and operated. It is also not
clear whether the derail rake was of Nagpur division close circuit rake or rake of other
circuit.
7) CE as yet not received RUD which was required to provide with charge memorandum.
And hence DE unable to submit reply on framed charges vide above referenced charge
memorandum. It is requested to hon. I.O. to arrange the same certified RUD so that DE
is enable to submit detail submission on the same. DE and D.C. is expecting the RUD
well before 3 days of regular proceeding of inquiry call.
8) Your honour is well aware of provision of Presenting Officer in such DAR cases. But as
yet no SF- 8 is issued. So please clear it with the DA.
9) Since the framed charges are based on the higher authority i.e. Sr. DSO, DE and D.C
are expecting assurance of your kind honor that without under any predetermined view,
biasness and influence, DE & DC will get all the privilege of Principal of Natural justice.
10) Since the preliminary inquiry proceedings documents and Daily Order Sheet (DOS) not
issued to DE, it is requested that the same to be provided.
Your honor it is requested to that before starting inquiry proceedings, all the above
observation, matters, objections and requirements to be taken for redress.
DE & D.C. expecting your justified view in this regard.
Thanks.
Yours faithfully
Aniruddh D. Ukey.
LPG.
D.C.
M. P. Deo LPM, NGP