R. V. RAVEENDRAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE respondent was an employee of the central Railway. A charge- sheet was issued on November 1, 1999 alleging fraud and misappropriation by him while working as head Booking Clerk at Bhopal. One S. P. Nigam was appointed as Inquiry Officer. After inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the respondent guilty of the charges. Acting on the said report, the Disciplinary authority by order dated October 29, 2001 imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appeal filed by the respondent was rejected on April 3, 2002.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved, the respondent approached the Central Administrative tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in O. A. No. 408/2002. The Respondent urged that the domestic inquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice and therefore vitiated on the following two grounds: (I) The Disciplinary Authority did not appoint any Presenting Officer to present the case. The Inquiry Officer himself acted as the Presenting Officer and conducted regular examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses and put questions suggestive of answers supporting the charges. The Inquiry officer also cross- examined the defence witnesses. The action of Inquiry Officer acting also as the Presenting Officer, amounts to Judge acting as a prosecutor which is opposed to principles of natural justice. (ii) The documents requested by the respondent to establish his case (Voucher entry Book for the dates February 26 1997 and February 27, 1997 and Cash remittances (sic) dated February 27, 1997, March 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11, 1997) were neither produced nor made available for inspection, in spite of respondent insisting that they were necessary to prove that he was not guilty and one Albert Tigga and S. K. Dubey were responsible. The Respondent was thus prevented from effectively presenting his case to establish that he was not guilty.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal by order dated March 25, 2004 allowed the application. It held that the inquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer and thus the inquiry was vitiated as it violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal therefore set aside the orders of the disciplinary Authority and the Appellate authority and remitted the matter to the. Disciplinary Authority to conduct an inquiry against the respondent afresh from the stage of appointment of Presenting Officer.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the Railway administration has filed this appeal. Ms. Indira nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on Rule 9 (9) (c) of thej railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 ('rules' for short) and the Railway Board circular dated October 20, 1971, contended that it was not necessary for the Disciplinary authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in every case and he had the discretion either to appoint or not to appoint a Presenting Officer. She also placed reliance on the decisions of the supreme Court in Workmen in Buckingham and carnatic Mills, Madras v. Buckingham and carnatic Mills 1970-I-LLJ-26 and mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1975 SC 2125 : 1975 (4)scc 731 : 1975-I-LLJ-391 in support of her; contention. ( 5 ) RULE 9 (9) (c) of the Rules relied on by the Railway administration is extracted below for ready reference:"where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into an article of charge or appoints a Board of Inquiry or any other inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order in writing, appoint a Railway or any other Government servant to be known as 'presenting Officer to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge. "the contention of the petitioners is that as the rule uses the word 'may appoint a Presenting officer appointment of a Presenting Officer is not mandatory and such appointment de pends on the discretion of the disciplinary authority. A careful reading of the said rule shows that it is an enabling provision which gives di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document