Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Union of India Rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway – Petitioner
Versus
B.S. Purushotham S/o B. Sundara Rajan – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13000 of 2018
Decided On : 19-12-2023
VIOLATION - Railway Employee Misconduct - Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 9, Paras 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual - The court discussed the violation of Paras 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual, the legal provisions, and their interpretations, and how they influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Ticket Examiner, was charged with misconduct during a decoy check by the Vigilance team of Railways. The respondent denied the charges, and after an enquiry, the penalty of withholding annual increments was imposed. The penalty was later enhanced to compulsory retirement, which led to the respondent filing O.A. No. 1439 of 2012. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the O.A., quashing the impugned Orders and providing consequential benefits to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the violation of Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual vitiated the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty orders. The court also found that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager was not the competent Revisional Authority under Rule 25 of the Railway Servant Disciplinary and Conduct Rules, 1968 to pass the order of enhancement of the penalty to compulsory retirement. The court held that the impugned order of the Tribunal did not call for any interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
Issues: Violation of Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, Competency of Revisional Authority under Rule 25 of the Railway Servant Disciplinary and Conduct Rules, 1968, and the interference of the impugned order of the Tribunal in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The violation of Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual vitiated the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty orders. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager was not the competent Revisional Authority under Rule 25 of the Railway Servant Disciplinary and Conduct Rules, 1968 to pass the order of enhancement of the penalty to compulsory retirement. The impugned order of the Tribunal did not call for any interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Tribunal was upheld. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India and its Authorities challenging the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2017 passed in O. A. No. 1439 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short “The Tribunal”), Hyderabad with the prayer to quash the same.
3. The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as under:
“…to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of the Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 01.12.2017 rendered in O.A.No. 1439 of 2012 on the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad quash and set aside the same as it is contrary to law and pass……”
4. The respondent, Sri B.S.Purushotham, while working as Ticket Examiner in Guntakal Division was issued the Charge Memorandum dated 16/23.03.1998 by the 6th Petitioner/Assistant Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Charges related to the alleged misconduct of the respondent, during a decoy check by the Vigilance team of Railways in Train No. 248 Passenger from Madanapalle to Tirupati on 27.04.1997 wherein the respondent was working as Travelling Ticket Collector in that train in the Checking Squad. The respondent allowed a decoy passenger to travel from Kalikiri Station to Tirupati without ticket by collecting Rs.30/- for which no railway receipt was issued and thereby he violated the provisions of Indian Railway Commercial Manual and Railway Service Conduct Rules.
5. The Articles I and II of the Charges read as under:
“Statement of Articles of Charges framed against Sri B.S. Purushotham TC/Spl Squad/RU:
Article-I:
That the said Sri B.S. Purushotham TC/SS/RU while working as squad by Tr.No. 248 passenger on 27.04.1997 in between Kalikiri and Tirupathi has failed to maintain devotion to duty and also acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant and committed the following serious irregularity in that:
He has collected Rs.30/- unauthorized charges from Sri Kadam Gopal and permitted to travel to Tirupathi without ticket as detailed in the statement of imputations and thus liable vide para 2430 (R) of IRCM Vol. II.
Thus Sri B.S. Purushotham TC/SS/RU has violated rule No. 3(i)(ii) and (iii) of Railway Service (conduct) rules 1966.
Article-II:
That the said Sri B.S. Purushotham TC/SS/RU while working as squad by Train No. 248 passenger on 27.04.1997 in between Kalikiri and Tirupathi has failed to maintain absolute integrity devotion to duty and also unbecoming of Railway Servant committed the following serious irregularity in that:
He has collected Rs.30/- from Sri Kadam Gopal at Piler and has not issued receipt upto Pullercherla and thus violated the instructions contained in para 2427 (b) of IRCM Vol II.
Thus Sri B.S. Purushotham TC/SS/RU has violated rule No. 3(i) (ii) and (iii) of Rly. Services conduct rules, 1966.”
6. The respondent denied the Charges. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his report recording the findings that, both the Articles of Charge were proved. A copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was served to the respondent for submitting the Representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After considering, the representation and the Enquiry Officer’s report, the Disciplinary Authority/Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM) vide Proceedings dated 30.09.1999 imposed the penalty of “withholding of his Annual Increments for a period of 40 months (NR).” The respondent
AI
The violation of procedural guidelines under the Railway Vigilance Manual can vitiate disciplinary proceedings, and the Revisional Authority must be higher than the Appellate Authority as per the Rai....
Procedural violations in disciplinary hearings, such as lack of impartiality and proper inquiry conduct, invalidate removal from service and necessitate quashing of disciplinary orders.
Total violation of vigilance trap guidelines, biased inquiry without Presenting Officer, and improper evidence appreciation vitiate disciplinary proceedings despite non-binding nature of manuals, war....
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to procedural fairness and natural justice; non-statutory vigilance manual violations do not vitiate inquiry without proven prejudice; no re-apprec....
Disciplinary proceedings must be supported by substantial evidence; bias against the employee due to prior whistleblowing resulted in procedural unfairness.
Revised punishment of reduction to lower pay scale for specified period with cumulative effect upheld as compliant with rules; no re-appreciation of enquiry evidence; corruption penalties valid even ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
