Vigilance department cannot appoint its own officers as enquiry officers in disciplinary proceedings to ensure impartiality and natural justice.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :

“(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside impugned penalty order dated 05.01.2017 passed by respondent no.3 and appellate order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 are marked as Annexure no. I & II to the compilation No.I.

(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent to restore the pay of the applicant to its original grade without having any effect of penalty against him.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Commercial Superintendent at the Indara Junction Railway station NE Railways, was served with a charge sheet under rule 9 of Railway Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1968 by respondent no.3. On 01.08.2015, the vigilance team, in the afternoon entered in the booking room and directly go at the counter where Mr. Jitendra Yadav was working as Commercial Clerk at the counter no. 1558. After a few minutes two persons belonging to the vigilance department appeared in his room carrying a third person with them and inquired the applicant about his identity. One outsider person namely Ravi Kumar who was sitting at the counter of Shri Jitendra Kumar (commercial clerk) was caught while distributing the tickets but due to the wrong information about the exit door by applicant he could manage to escaped away from the custody of the vigilance team before arrival of the Railway Protection Force.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 13.01.2016, the applicant submitted an application that the disciplinary proceeding against him has been initiated only after a raid was conducted by vigilance department and therefore the entire enquiry proceeding would vitiate if the enquiry officer is appointed from the vigilance department as it will not to be free and impartial and without the element of the bias. On 29.02.2016, the disciplinary authority appointed Shri Jaheer Ahmad enquiry officer from the Vigilance Department, Gorakhpur. The appointment of the enquiry officer from the vigilance department itself is illegal as per the departmental instructions. On 03.04.2016, the applicant submitted a representation before the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Headquarter Gorakhpur for directing the disciplinary authority for appointment of the enquiry officer from any department other than the vigilance department. On 05.04.2016, the applicant submitted another application before the enquiry officer and requested that unless the representation for change of enquiry officer is decided no further proceeding be conducted in the matter. On 12.04.2016, the applicant has received a letter from the disciplinary authority that there is no relation between the enquiry organization and vigilance organization and the same is separate units under SDGM, Headquarter, Gorakhpur. The enquiry officer has been appointed as per rules who is not a part of the vigilance department and as such your representation is rejected. The applicant also submitted an application before the enquiry officer for appointment of Shri Ghanshyam Singh as his defence assistant and also requested to provide the document which he has demanded before the en