Disciplinary Procedure Violation: CAT Quashes Second Inquiry Appointment Post Exoneration Report in Railway Case - 2025-06-09

CAT Quashes Second Inquiry in Railway Officer's Decade-Old Disciplinary Case, Cites Procedural Breach

Jaipur: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur Bench, comprising Ms. Ranjana Shahi (Member (J)) and Shri Lok Ranjan (Member (A)), has set aside key actions taken by the North Western Railway (NWR) in a protracted disciplinary proceeding against one of its officers, S.K. Nagarwal . The Tribunal found that the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority after receiving an inquiry report that exonerated the officer violated the mandatory rules, particularly concerning the appointment of a fresh inquiry authority.

The judgment, delivered on May 30, 2025 (though the order was reserved on May 08, 2025), addressed two original applications (O.A. No. 442/2021 and O.A. No. 443/2021) filed by Mr. Nagarwal , a Deputy Chief Engineer. Both applications stemmed from a major penalty charge-sheet issued against him on August 5, 2010.

Background of the Case

Mr. Nagarwal 's disciplinary case has a long and complex history. The original charge-sheet led to previous litigation (O.A. No. 471/2012) where the CAT, in 2018, had set aside the issuance of the charge memo and the initial appointment of the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) due to procedural lapses, but crucially, did not quash the charge-sheet itself. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) – the General Manager, NWR – to reconsider the officer's defence statement and proceed afresh according to the rules. This earlier order and subsequent review orders were challenged by Mr. Nagarwal in a Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court, which was noted as still pending.

Following the CAT's 2018 order, the disciplinary process resumed. After several changes in the assigned Inquiry Officer, one Mr. Y.P. Singh conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on March 3, 2020, finding all charges against Mr. Nagarwal "not-proved" and recommending they be dropped.

Dispute Arises After Exoneration Report

The present applications arose from the actions taken by the NWR administration after receiving Mr. Singh 's exoneration report. The D.A. first forwarded the report to the Railway Board (the higher competent authority for certain major penalties against Group A officers). Subsequently, the D.A. issued a Disagreement Note on January 29, 2021 (communicated on February 2, 2021), expressing disagreement with the I.O.'s findings and stating that several charges were considered "proved". After receiving Mr. Nagarwal 's representation against the disagreement, the D.A., on November 24, 2021, issued orders appointing a new Inquiry Authority and Presenting Officer to inquire into the same charges from the 2010 charge-sheet. This was followed by a communication on November 25, 2021, advising the new I.A. to conduct the inquiry.

Mr. Nagarwal challenged the Disagreement Note and the appointment of the new I.A. and P.O., arguing that the D.A. should be deemed to have accepted the exoneration report and that initiating a second inquiry into the same charges was impermissible.

Tribunal's Analysis and Findings

The Tribunal reviewed the matter considering the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, citing Supreme Court judgments like Union of India & Ors. Vs. Subrata Nath , B.C. Chaturvedi , and Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran . These precedents emphasize that courts/tribunals should not reappreciate evidence or substitute their findings for the D.A.'s but can interfere if there are violations of natural justice, statutory rules, or findings are based on no evidence or are perverse.

The Tribunal specifically examined Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which outlines the procedure after receiving an inquiry report. Rule 10 mandates the D.A. to consider the report, their tentative reasons for disagreement (if any), and the charged officer's representation before recording its own findings and proceeding to impose a penalty or forward the case to a higher authority if required.

The Tribunal found procedural flaws in the actions taken by the NWR D.A.:

1. Forwarding Report Prematurely: The D.A. forwarding the inquiry report to the Railway Board before recording his own findings after considering the report, disagreement, and representation was not in strict accordance with Rule 10.
2. Predetermined Finding in Disagreement Note: The Disagreement Note stating that charges were considered "proved" went beyond merely stating "tentative reasons for disagreement" and appeared to reflect a predetermined mind, vitiating the process.
3. Appointment of Second Inquiry: Crucially, the Tribunal held that appointing a new I.A. and P.O. to conduct an inquiry into the same charges after the previous I.O. had already conducted an inquiry and submitted a report, and after the disagreement and representation stages, was not contemplated by Rule 10. The procedure under Rule 10 involves the D.A. making a decision based on the existing report, disagreement, and representation, not ordering a fresh inquiry at that stage.

The Tribunal drew support from the principle established in the Supreme Court's 1971 judgment in K.R. Deb Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong , which, though dealing with different rules, held that successive inquiries into the same charges were generally not contemplated, especially merely because the D.A. disagreed with the I.O.'s report. The D.A. has the power to consider the evidence and report and come to its own conclusion under the rules.

Decision and Directions

Based on these findings, the Tribunal rejected Mr. Nagarwal 's prayers to deem the D.A. to have accepted the exoneration report (as no such decision was recorded) and to quash the original charge-sheet (as this matter was sub-judice before the High Court). The prayer regarding promotion/sealed cover was also deemed premature, noting that standard rules apply but without prejudice to the officer's right to pursue remedies elsewhere.

However, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the actions taken after the receipt of the inquiry report dated March 3, 2020, including:

* The Disagreement Note dated January 29, 2021 (communicated on February 2, 2021).

* The orders dated November 24, 2021, appointing the new I.A. and P.O.

* The communication dated November 25, 2021, to the new I.A.

The case has been remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 2 - GM, NWR) to restart the process from the stage immediately upon receipt of the Inquiry Report dated March 3, 2020. The D.A. must now proceed strictly as per Rule 10 of the RS(D&A) Rules, 1968, by:

1. Indicating his own tentative reasons for disagreement with the I.O. report, if any.

2. Obtaining Mr. Agarwal's 's written representation on the disagreement.

3. Considering the report, disagreement, and representation.

4. Recording his findings before proceeding further as per sub-rules (3), (4), and (5) of Rule 10 regarding potential penalty or forwarding to a higher authority.

Considering the prolonged delay since 2010, the Tribunal directed the D.A. to complete this process within three months. If the case needs to be referred to the higher competent authority (Railway Board) for a final decision on penalty, that decision must be taken within a further period of three months.

The Tribunal clarified that these directions are subject to any orders issued or to be issued by the Rajasthan High Court in the pending Writ Petition. The pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The judgment highlights the necessity for disciplinary authorities to adhere strictly to prescribed procedures, particularly in complex cases with a long history, reinforcing that rules governing post-inquiry steps must be followed precisely.