ORDER : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner by way of this petition has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter-alia challenging the order and judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. no.172 of 2007 passed on 23rd October 2008 and order dated 10th October 2013 passed in Review Application no.26 of 2012, whereby the tribunal rejected the O.A. and R.A., which has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of punishment passed by the respondent railway after holding due inquiry in respect of the incident, which was said to have been on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner. 3. The facts shorn off undue details, requiring for deciding the controversy in hands deserve to be mentioned as under : 3.1 The petitioner was working as ESM. While working at Gothangam he was issued a charge-sheet dated 5th March 2001 alleging that while he was working at the said station kept the key of the relay room and tempered with normal setting of the points 121/122 whereas the points were set in reverse condition at site which has resulted into bursting of the point no.121 by train no. JNPT Goods train at about 9:00 hours and point no.122 by train no. CHADS Special at about 9:10 hours and by such action the petitioner has created a very serious unsafe condition, which may result into damage to the life of passenger. 3.2 The petitioner had approached to the tribunal by filing the OA No.507 of 2001. After perusing the records, the tribunal had agreed with contention of the petitioner that there is gross violation of Discipline & Appeal Rules and quashed and set aside all the order issued by the Disciplinary Authority and also declared the inquiry proceedings as illegal and directed the respondent to reopen the inquiry proceedings and to give findings without influence of the earlier proceedings and orders issued by the Disciplinary Authority and other higher officers. Based on the further evidence led, the inquiry officer has gave his finding. It is observed that it is difficult to say that the charge of tampering the relay by the petitioner is proved. Based on the further evidence led, the inquiry officer has gave his finding. It is observed that it is difficult to say that the charge of tampering the relay by the petitioner is proved. On the basis of the evidence on record the inquiry officer has ultimately came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved, the Disciplinary Authority ignoring the evidence on record has decided the matter and imposed penalty to the petitioner. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3. However, the appellate authority had ignored the facts and evidence and supported the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Again being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before the respondent no.2. However, the said revision application was also rejected by the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 26th September 2006. 3.4 Thereafter, against the said penalty order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.172 of 2007. The tribunal however, agreed with the contention of the petitioner that there is gross violation of Discipline & Appeal Rules. The tribunal therefore, quashed and set aside all the orders issued by the Disciplinary Authority and also declared the inquiry proceedings as illegal and directed the respondent to reopen the inquiry proceedings and to give findings without influence of the earlier proceedings and orders issued by the Disciplinary Authority and other higher officers. 3.5 It is the statement of the inquiry officer that the seal applied to the relay i.e. in the box of glass, the seal remain intact and therefore, there is no question or any possibility of the employee to tamper manually the relay. But, the tribunal has not considered the said fact and rejected the OA filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Revision Application no.26 of 2012 which is also dismissed by the tribunal. Against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court. This Court vide order dated 30th November 2017 disposed of the said petition with permission to file afresh. 4. Hence, the present petition. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Revision Application no.26 of 2012 which is also dismissed by the tribunal. Against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court. This Court vide order dated 30th November 2017 disposed of the said petition with permission to file afresh. 4. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the findings recorded by the Investigating Authority and Disciplinary Authority, which include that the fault for the incident could not be attached the petitioner and apart therefrom the order impugned originally imposing penalty is in fact in respect of two penalties as the order is not only imposing penalty, but also denies the backwages. Thus, it works to the prejudice to the petitioner and is also contrary to the provisions of fundamental Rule-54 as mentioned. 6. This Court heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. The following observations of the tribunal read in juxtaposition for the reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority would clearly indicate that the petitioner could not make-out any case for interference thereof. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the tribunal reads as under : “7. (a) Neither the applicant nor the respondents have brought the full text of EO's report on record. We find that there is only one article of charge and in support of that two incidents have been mentioned in the statement of imputation. The report of the damage into point Nos.121 and 122 at GTX on 21.01.01 is based on statements of six persons recorded during preliminary enquiry and report of data logger. Two of these six persons are witnesses during the enquiry. The data logger report is relied upon document. The sequence of events has been arranged chronologically in the following format : Sr. No. Time Event Source of information (b) Except for serial 1 to 6 and 10 the source of information for rest of entries is datalogger. The first four are events of 20th January, the next two are event at 04.46 am & 5.12 am on 21.01.01 Serial 10 is event relating to failure of track circuit No.21 between 08.48 to 08.52. Entry 17, 18, 19 are as under :- Sr. The first four are events of 20th January, the next two are event at 04.46 am & 5.12 am on 21.01.01 Serial 10 is event relating to failure of track circuit No.21 between 08.48 to 08.52. Entry 17, 18, 19 are as under :- Sr. No. Time Event Source of information 17 8.54.36 Point Nos.121/122 operated but this time point become normal at 8.55.58 i.e. it took 1 minute & 22 seconds whereas it should have taken only about 10 seconds. Date logger 18 8.56.2 Indication of 121/122 bobbed/flashed without pressing of buttons. Data logger 19 08.58.0 hrs. Track circuit No.121 did not fail even under moving train (JNPT Rajdhani) and subsequently RRBU operation was done at 91.00 hrs. to release the route. Data logger 8. The reply indicates that applicant was under deemed suspension. However, the orders placing him under deemed suspension is not on record. How is this period regularized after passing of this order is also not on record. Neither the applicant nor the respondents have produced the copy of EO's report or minutes. The applicant has not brought anything on record to suggest that this issue was raised. It is also not contended that nonpayment of subsistence allowance has prejudiced him in his defence. Rule 5(4) of RS (D & A) Rules makes it clear that if the Court has quashed an order it is open to the disciplinary authority to place the employee under deemed suspension. Such a liberty had been granted in the previous round of litigation. 9. The EO has found first of the two incidents of statement of imputation as true. The DA has relied on the entry furnished by data logger and the presence of applicant in relay room. Para 9 of our decision on the previous occasion refers. This paragraph is extracted in para 2 above. 10. In his revision petition to ADRM the applicant has raised contentions regarding (a) not being offered an opportunity to examine member of Joint Inquiry Committee, (b) not obtaining expert opinion regarding the correction made in key register and (c) not following the procedure laid down in Rule 9(21) of R.S. (D & A) Rules. It has been contended the seal was intact and hence he could not have tampered. 11. Extracts of para 11 of the reply have been produced in para 5 above. It has been contended the seal was intact and hence he could not have tampered. 11. Extracts of para 11 of the reply have been produced in para 5 above. It is stated that neither the applicant nor his defence counsel had made any request in writing to the new Inquiry Officer to cross examine these witnesses. It is stated in para 5 of rejoinder that a request had made to adjourn inquiry and that the records indicated about rejection of cross-examination of witnesses. Was this rejection made on the previous occasion. The applicant has not brought these proceedings on record. 16. … We notice that the report of datalogger suggests tampering. We had in para 9 of the judgment on the previous occasion held that the information being provided by that machine can be accepted unless challenged. There is no challenge to the finding. We had observed that the conclusions regarding guilt, etc., will have to be drawn with reference to the frame work of operating the relays in the instant case. The applicant has admitted in the inquiry that he had obtained the key. All the three authorities have held that tampering can be done even if relays were in sealed conditions. No pleadings have been raised in OA in this regard to controvert these findings. The decision in Channabasappa would accordingly apply. 17. The decision of Apex Court in Channabasappa and D.M. Sadananda (supra) would apply to the facts of this case. The decision in Lalit Popli indicates that a man familiar with handwriting can accept. This has to be seen in the context of his admission before E.O. The onus was on the applicant to establish that he had not tampered with the relay. This he has failed to discharge. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions, there is no merit in the OA and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 7. We are in complete agreement with the judgment and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 23rd October 2008 in O.A. No.172 of 2007 and we find that the same does not call for any interference of this Court and the petition is meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the present petition is dismissed. We are in complete agreement with the judgment and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 23rd October 2008 in O.A. No.172 of 2007 and we find that the same does not call for any interference of this Court and the petition is meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the present petition is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 23rd October 2008 passed in O.A. No.172 of 2007 as well as order dated 10th October 2013 passed in Review Application no.26 of 2012 impugned in this petition are hereby confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.