D. MUNISWAMY v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILWAY

later confirmed by the appellate authority.

4. The petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that the enquiry officer failed to properly consider the acquittal order passed by the criminal Court. It was contended that the charge memo issued in 1996 was not pursued to its logical conclusion and that there was an unreasonable delay in the departmental enquiry, which was only dropped after nine years. The fresh charge memo was issued almost immediately after the previous one was dropped, using the same set of witnesses and evidence, a move the petitioner argued was unjust. Citing judgment 6 Ramalal vs. State of Rajasthan1, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the charges in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry were not just similar but identical, with the same witnesses, evidence, and circumstances being considered. The petitioner further pointed out that no departmental action was taken against Munirathnam, the co- accused, and argued that the doctrine of equality, as established in Rajendra Yadav v. State of MP2, should apply to both individuals. The petitioner also cited the judgment in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Others3, arguing that the penalty removal from service, based solely on a confessional statement, was erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence. ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. 23 (ii) The impugned order of dismissal dated 9.7.2009 passed by respondent No.2 and confirmed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 6/8.10.2009 as per Annexures-G and H are hereby quashed. (iii) The respondents are hereby directed to settle all retiral benefits by extending continuity of service till attainment of the age of superannuation. No order as to costs. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *alb/-