SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN, JJ.
B. Krishna Kumar - Petitioner 
Versus 
Union of India - Respondent 
W.P.No.8434 of 2012
Decided on : 07-08-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri K.R.K. V. Prasad
For the Respondents: Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, Central Govt., Counsel

Procedural violations in disciplinary hearings, such as lack of impartiality and proper inquiry conduct, invalidate removal from service and necessitate quashing of disciplinary orders.

Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Procedural Violations - The applicant was dismissed for alleged misconduct related to illegal gratification, but the inquiry lacked fairness due to an improperly appointed Enquiry Officer from the Vigilance Department, violation of the Vigilance Manual, and failure to comply with Rule 9(21) of the Rules. Additionally, the appellate authority failed to provide a reasoned decision according to Rule 22(2), leading to a quashing of both the Tribunal's order and the disciplinary action taken against the applicant. (Paras 12, 21, 34, 70-75).

Facts of the case:
The applicant was dismissed from service following a charge of accepting bribes to process a Provident Fund application. The applicant argued procedural irregularities during the inquiry. (Paras 4-9).

Findings of Court:
The inquiry conducted was flawed due to jurisdictional violations regarding authority, lack of independent witnesses, and misapplication of procedural rules, leading to the conclusion that the removal was not justified. (Paras 70-74).

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings adhered to the prescribed regulations and if the removal from service was warranted. (Paras 19, 70).

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the violation of procedural safeguards laid out in the Vigilance Manual is significant, and failure to comply with statutory inquiry requirements undermined the validity of the disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 70-74).

Result: Writ petition allowed; removal order quashed. The petitioner reinstated on service with back benefits. (Paras 75-76).

Table of Content
1. understanding of the events leading to disciplinary action (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments presented by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction and procedure (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. clarification of appointing authorities and their roles (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. analysis of compliance with the vigilance manual (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. impact of the enquiry officer's role and independence (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
6. requirements for fair inquiry and implications of breaches (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
7. essentials of appellate consideration as per statutory requirements (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
8. conclusion on the proceedings' fairness and legality (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
9. final resolution and implications for the petitioner (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents 1 to 6.

2. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.958 of 2011 (in short OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (in short, the Tribunal). The same was dismissed on 15.02.2012 and challenging the said judgment, the present writ petition was filed.

3. The petitioner shall be referred as the applicant and the respondent as the respondent.

I. FACTS:

4. The applicant was appointed as Peon in Vijaywada Division of South Central Railways. He was later on promoted to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist, after the said promotion panel was approved by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway-2nd respondent in terms of the proceedings dated 13.03.1997 issued by the 3rd respondent-the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Vijayawada Division. While working as Junior Clerk (Mechanical Bills), pursuant to a Vigilance trap dated 28.10.2009 the applicant was served with a charge memo vide Memorandum No.B/P227/IV/2009/3/Vig., dated 14.12.2009 by the 5th respondent the Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Guntakal Division, with respect to the demand and receipt of illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from one Smt G. Parameswari (the complainant) to process her Provident Fund withdrawal application.

5. The Article of Charge against the applicant reads as under:

"ANNEXURE TO STANDARD FORM No.5

The Memorandum of Charge Sheet under Rule – 9 of the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968:

ANNEXURE-I

ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR, Jr. Clerk/Mech., Bills, Sr.DPO/O/BZA.

Article(i)

That the said Shri. B.Krishna Kumar, Jr. Clerk, Mechanical Bills, Sr. DPO/O/BZA while working as such on 28.10.2009 had committed serious misconduct in that he had demanded and collected an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from Smt. G. Parameswari, Welder Gr.I, Wagon Depot/BZA to process her Provident Fund withdrawal application dt. 16.10.2009 as detailed in the statement of imputations.

Thus, the said Shri. B. Krishna Kumar had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant and has violated Rule No.3(1)(i),(ii) & (iii) and Rule 26 of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

6. The applicant was given an intra Divisional transfer from Vijayawada Division to Guntakal Division.

7. The applicant submitted reply dated 04.01.2010 to the charge memo to the 5th respondent denying the allegations. Not being satisfied with the reply, the 5th respondent considered to conduct enquiry and nominated the 6th respondent as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. However, any presenting officer was not appointed.

8. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the charge as proved and the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the copy of the report of the Investigating Officer to the applicant











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top