Judgment :-

Swatanter Kumar, J.

Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 25293 of 2008.

2. Leave granted.

3. This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned appeals as common question of law on somewhat similar facts arise in all the appeals for consideration of this Court.

4. The Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 25th February, 2008 has filed the present appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court declined to interfere with the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act had set aside the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry afresh from the stage of nomination of the inquiry officer.

5. A simple but question of some significance under service jurisprudence falls for consideration in the present appeals, whether or not under the relevant Rules and provisions of the Act, the Railway Authorities have the jurisdiction to appoint a retired employee of the Department as 'Inquiry Officer' within the ambit of Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short referred to as 'the Rules').

6. The facts necessary for dealing with this batch of appeals can be summarily stated. The respondents in all these appeals are the members in service of the Railway Establishment. Alok Kumar, respondent in SLP (C) No. 25293 of 2008, is a Group-A officer, while in all other appeals the respondents are from clerical cadre of the Railway Department. This is primarily the only distinguishing feature in the facts of the present appeals. The High Court as well as the Tribunal in all these cases recorded the finding that a retired officer of the Railways cannot be appointed as an inquiry officer within the meaning of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules.

7. Keeping in view the common question of law that has been answered against Union of India, it may not be necessary for us to refer to the facts of each case in detail. Suffice it to notice the facts in some detail in Shri Alok's case. Shri Alok Kumar, respondent, an officer of the Indian Railway Services of Engineers was appointed as Senior Divisional Engineer and was one of the Members of the Tender Committee as well. It is the case of the appellants before us that some irregularities of the Tender Committee were noticed.

8. The Competent Authority on 11th September, 2001 thus served a charge sheet upon the delinquent officer under Rule 9 of the Rules, calling upon him to render his explanation with regard to the Article of Charges and imputations stated therein. It was alleged that Shri Alok Kumar, as convener member of the Committee besides the official position he was holding, submitted a brief calling for tenders on the basis of highly inflated estimates with a view to justify-award of contract at very high rates. It was also alleged that he did not submit proper information before the Tender Committee and deliberately misled the other members of the Committee. The Tender Committee which met on 13th July, 1999, upon comparing the rates quoted by M/s Rajpal Builders with the estimated tender value, had found that these were (-) 1.7% lower than the estimated rates.

9. In short, it was stated that by misusing his official status he had awarded the contract to the contractor of the Department at high rates. To this, the delinquent filed reply denying the Article of Charges. One Shri J.K. Thapar, retired CAO/FOIS, Northern Railways was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The inquiry was conducted by him during the year 2001-02. The entire file including the Central Vigilance Commission (for short 'CVC') advice was also placed before the competent authority. The Discip