JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 23.3.2013 passed in Original Application No. 326 of 2013, Gopal Kishan Soti v. Union of India and others and also challenging the memorandum of charges dated 2.11.2012 issued to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that one Sri Sandeep Kumar Verma, Train Ticket Commissioner posted at Haridwar Railway Station of the Northern Railway was issued a charge-sheet, wherein, the allegation was that while working in the Railways, he took admission as a regular student in the Krishna College of Law, Noorpur Road, Bijnor concealing the fact of his employment in the Railways. The said Sandeep Kumar Varma was also caught during the examination by the Invigilating Team of using unfair means and was also charged with misbehaviour with the employees of the aforesaid college. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the said Sandeep Kumar Verma and the petitioner was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the said enquiry. The petitioner conducted the enquiry and during scrutiny of the Enquiry Report dated 3.4.2012 certain lapses were found by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad who was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. It was found that during the enquiry against Sandeep Kumar Verma, the petitioner has allowed one Sri Iftikar Ahmad, an outsider, to participate in the enquiry as PW-3 while no such person had been mentioned in the charge-sheet as a witness in the list of witnesses. In the charge-sheet in the list of witnesses Sri R.D. Ram had been mentioned as PW-3. The second allegation against the petitioner was that the order-sheet of the enquiry proceedings dated 23.12.2010 and 7.1.2011 were prepared by the Charged Officer himself i.e., Sri Sandeep Kumar Verma, and was merely signed by the petitioner as the Enquiry Officer. On these allegations the Disciplinary Authority had grave doubts as to the fairness and impartiality of the enquiry proceedings on the part of the petitioner and therefore on the enquiry report dated 3.4.2012 submitted by the petitioner an investigation was conducted and the truth of the charges was also ascertained from the Krishna College of Law, Noorpur Road, Bijnor and M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Barelly, who submitted their reports against Sri Sandeep Kumar Verma. On these facts and documentary evidence the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Mirzapur as the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the petitioner had deliberately tried to assist the Charged Officer Sri Sandeep Kumar Verma by concealing the truth and trying to mislead the Railway-Administration by submitting a false and cryptic enquiry report dated 3.4.2012 with a dis-honest motive and for personal gain. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 2.11.2012 which was received by him on 17.11.2012. 3. The petitioner filed the Original Application No. 326 of 2013 challenging this charge-sheet. The grounds taken by the petitioner was that while acting as Enquiry Officer, his status was that of a Judicial Officer and therefore, his conduct cannot be questioned. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 23.3.2013 has however dismissed the writ petition, recording a finding that the Original Application was premature as it was filed challenging the charge-sheet dated 2.11.2012 and enquiry against the petitioner was still pending and it was open for the petitioner to lead evidence and participate in the enquiry proceedings with the assistance of a Railway Servant as a Defence Assistance and further that in case any order of punishment was passed against him, it would be open for him to challenge the same by way of departmental appeal and further by way of revision if aggrieved by the appellate order. 5. Before us also the petitioner referred to the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 as well as various documents filed by him alongwith the Original Application No. 326 of 2013 copy of which has been filed today by way of a supplementary affidavit dated 23.4.2013 and tried to show that the enquiry proceedings were not maintainable against the petitioner. 6. We have heard Sri H.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 7. Sri H.C. Shukla submitted that the petitioner while acting as Enquiry Officer had assumed the status of a Judicial Officer and therefore, misconduct, if any, conducted by the petitioner during the enquiry could not be investigated and that the original application against the charge-sheet was liable to be quashed. 8. We have gone through the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and perused the documents on record. 8. We have gone through the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and perused the documents on record. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the Original Application No. 326 of 2013 was filed by him challenging the charge-sheet issued to him on 2.11.2012. It is not disputed that the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner are still pending and no final orders have been passed. 9. In the case in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 , the respondent had challenged the charge-sheet dated 2.5.1989 issued to him while he was working as Income Tax Officer, Muktsar alleging certain irregularities while considering the assessments. The Supreme Court held that a charge-sheet can be issued even against a judicial officer or a person exercising quasi-judicial powers. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said judgement are important as they give the history of the case and are quoted as under: “4. Against the said memorandum dated May 2, 1989, the respondent preferred an application O.A. No. 2540 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi praying for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings and to consider his case for promotion on merits without resort to the sealed cover procedure. 5. By its order dated February 8, 1991, Central administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi directed the respondent-Union of India to open the sealed cover immediately and implement the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee insofar as it pertained to the petitioner and to promote him to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, if he was found fit for promotion, within two weeks from the date of said order. 6. Thereafter, by a detailed judgment dated March 22, 1991, the Tribunal relying on SLP (C) Nos. 2635-36 of 1989 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4986-87 of 1990 held that the action taken by the officer was quasi-judicial and should not have formed the basis of disciplinary action. Therefore, the application was allowed and the impugned memorandum dated May 2, 1989 was quashed. The earlier order dated February 8,1991 to open the sealed cover and implement the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee was made absolute. 10. Thereafter the Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of the said judgment has laid down succinctly the law in this regard which reads as under: “28. The earlier order dated February 8,1991 to open the sealed cover and implement the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee was made absolute. 10. Thereafter the Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of the said judgment has laid down succinctly the law in this regard which reads as under: “28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is i,important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases: 1. Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; 2. if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; 3. if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant; 4. if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; 5. if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; 6. if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago “though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great.” 11. In Union of India and another v. Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 180, the Supreme Court in a case where the Original Application was filed challenging the charge-sheet has held that the Tribunal entertained the respondent’s application at that stage and quashed the charge-sheet issued during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal on a ground which even the learned counsel for the respondent made no attempt to support. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as under: “4. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as under: “4. Admittedly, the respondent has not yet submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and the respondent rushed to the Central Administrative Tribunal merely on the information that a charge-sheet to this effect was to be issued to him. The Tribunal entertained the respondent’s application at that premature stage and quashed the charge-sheet issued during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal on a ground which even the learned counsel for the respondent made no attempt to support. The respondent has the full opportunity to reply to the charge-sheet and to raise all the points available to him including those which are now urged on his behalf by learned counsel for the respondent. In our opinion, this was not the stage at which the Tribunal ought to have entertained such an application for quashing the charge-sheet and the appropriate course for the respondent to adopt is to file his reply to the charge-sheet and invite the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. This being the stage at which the respondent had rushed to the Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to require the Tribunal at this stage to examine any other point which may be available to the respondent or which may have been raised by him. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court the present writ petition is wholly devoid on merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. ————