The court affirmed that procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings do not invalidate the process, especially in corruption cases, emphasizing the competency of the disciplinary authority and adherence to rules.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member (J))

The applicant filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“…that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records Order issued under letter No.MECH/C&W/HYB/DAR/SF-V/PP/06/2015, dated 28.02.2018; Order issued under letter No.C.M.226.C&DAR.Misc, dated 15.10.2018 and Order issued under letter No. SSE/C&W/HYB/DAR/SF- V/2015 dated 15.07.2019 and set aside and quash the aforesaid orders of penalty of removal from service along with the Charge Memorandum dated 16.07.2015 r/w. Corrigendum dated 03.12.2015 by declaring the same are null and void, illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice; and consequently, direct the respondent-Railways to reinstate the Applicant into service forthwith by providing continuity in service from 28.02.2018 as if the aforesaid penalty of removal from service was not imposed on the Applicant and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant, with a further direction to treat the period from 28.02.2018 to till the date of reinstatement as duty and release the consequential benefits..”

2. The facts of the case, briefly, as stated by the applicant, are that while he was working as Helper-I in Carriage & Wagon (C&W) Deport, in Hyderabad Railway Station of Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway, the 4^th respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings vide Memo dt. 16.07.2015 alleging that the he had demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- as advance amount from Sri P.N. Ravi Kumar (Decoy), Accounts Assistant working in the office of Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad on the false promise of providing appointment for the decoy’s sister and two other candidates of Staff Nurse on contract basis in Railways. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent issued corrigendum dt. 03.12.2015 partially modifying the Annexure III and Annexure IV by enlisting certain documents and witnesses. The applicant submitted his reply dt. 05.08.2015 denying the charges and sought a personal hearing. The 4^th respondent, who, according to the applicant, is not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him, has appointed an Inquiry Officer initially one Sri Krishna Rao and thereafter, Sri S.M. Prasad, Enquiry Inspectors working under the control of the Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) to enquire into the charge levelled against the applicant.

3. It is the contention of the applicant that the decoy operation was conducted by the Vigilance Organization under the control of Senior Deputy General Manager (Vig) and as such, the said allegation ought not to have been enquired into by an official under the control of the very same authority and it has resulted in administrative bias. The inquiry officer did not consider the defence of the applicant and has not followed the due process of inquiry and with prejudice, he has submitted a report on 08.02.2018 holding the charge as proved. The applicant further stated that he was appointed to the post of Helper-I by a Junior Administrative Grade Officer viz., Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Secunderabad Division vide order dt. 14.05.2001. The 4^th respondent, who is a Senior Scale officer, lower in rank than the said appointing authority, issued the order dt. 28.02.2018 imposing the penalty of removal from service, without even considering the contentions of the applicant in his representation dt. 24.02.2018 against the IOs report. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the applicant preferred appeal on 17.04.2018 and the penalt