The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, has dismissed an application of a train driver challenging a charge memo issued to him for allegedly causing a major accident last year.
The Bench also gave the green signal to proceed further against him.
On September 13, 2011, a Mainline Electric Multiple Unit (MEMU) train from Arakkonam to Vellore collided with a passenger train around 9.30 pm near Chitteri. Eleven persons, including the guard of the passenger train, were killed on the spot and 23 passengers suffered grievous injuries and 66 sustained simple injuries.
Preliminary enquiry revealed that A. Rajkumar, the MEMU driver, was driving the vehicle in violation of prescribed speed limit and had also violated the standing instructions against the use of cell phone while working.
The disciplinary authority issued the charge memo in February. Exceeding the permissible speed and violating safety instructions were the charges against him.
However, in his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mr. Rajkumar contended that the train was running at normal speed. On seeing an oncoming train, he applied the brake, but the speed could not be controlled, resulting in the collision.
Whether he had spoken on a mobile phone or not at the relevant time was a technical that could be decided by the competent criminal court after hearing technical officials of the service provider and railway authorities as witnesses.
It would prejudice his defence in the criminal case if this issue was the subject matter of the departmental proceedings.
However, Southern Railways contended that the driver was adopting a dilatory method to prolong the criminal case and also attempting to stall the departmental proceedings.
Dismissing Mr. Rajkumar’s application seeking the quashing of the charge memo, the Bench comprising members G. Shanthappa and R.Satapathy, said the applicant could cross-examine the witness in a departmental proceedings seek to be exonerated of the charges. The applicant would not be prejudiced if the departmental enquiry was concluded early.
The Bench also said, “The charges framed in both the criminal case and departmental enquiry are not similar. The parallel proceedings can go on in view of the judgements of the Supreme Court. No prejudice will be caused to the applicant, if disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are simultaneously conducted.”
Vacating a stay it had granted earlier, the Bench permitted the disciplinary authority or the competent authority to pass orders on the inquiry report.
