Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8037
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RAMESHWAR VYAS, J, AMIT SAHAI, A
Lakhan Lal Jatav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.338/2023 | Misc. Application No.204/2023 | Misc. Application No.148/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Kumar Kaushik
For the Respondents: K.S. Yadav
Disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules are valid if the Disciplinary Authority acts independently and exercises discretion within established legal frameworks.
Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Charge memorandum issued for major penalty - Inquiry proceedings challenged for alleged bias and external influence of vigilance department - Cited case laws regarding independence of Disciplinary Authority and procedure to be followed. (Paras 2.4, 7, 8.1)
(B) Inquiry Procedure - Conducting inquiry at the behest of vigilance department is permissible if within legal bounds; the inquiry officer retains discretion on the venue of inquiry and handling witness statements. (Paras 8.1, 8.3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, employed in the Railways, was accused of defrauding an individual claiming false employment promises leading to disciplinary action against him.
Findings of Court:
Disciplinary proceedings were not quashed; the inquiry officer acted within his rights to conduct the proceedings and collect evidence as stipulated by the regulations.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Disciplinary Authority acted under external pressures and whether the inquiry was conducted fairly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the vigilance department's involvement was within legal parameters and the discretion of the inquiry officer was upheld regarding procedural decisions, including the venue for the inquiry.
Result: The challenge against the charge memorandum was rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of fraud leading to disciplinary charge. (Para 2) |
| 2. responses to inquiries and assertions by both parties. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. confirmation of the inquiry officer's discretion and authority. (Para 8) |
…….Respondents By Advocate: Mr. K.S. Yadav ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)
Being aggrieved by charge memorandum dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure-A/1) issued against the applicant for initiating disciplinary proceedings for imposing major penalty under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968, the applicant has preferred this OA with prayer to quash and set aside the above charge memorandum.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-
2.1 A private person namely Shri Sonu Lal Sharma made a complaint against the applicant alleging that the applicant defrauded Rs.4.50 lacs on the false promise of providing him employment in Railways. Upon this complaint, Mr. Ravinder Misra, the then CVI conducted a preliminary inquiry on the basis of which, the applicant was issued a charge sheet under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
2.2 The 3rd respondent directed the DRM, NWR, Jodhpur to initiate major penalty vide letter dated 22.06.2020 (Annexure-A/7) and draft charge sheet was also annexed with the same. It was also instructed that nomination of IO and PO should be done in consultation. The applicant denied all the allegations. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Mr. Prakash Gurnani as Inquiry Officer and Mr. Bhoju Ram, as Presenting Officer. The name of Mr. Ravinder Misra was listed as witness in the list of witnesses, and was also permitted to take statements of other co- witnesses during inquiry. The statements obtained by Mr. Mishra were taken as additional documents in the inquiry. The applicant objected the same through several representations. But the inquiry officer did not consider the same. The applicant smelt some foul in the peculiar working of the inquiry officer. According to him, the Disciplinary Authority seemed to be under some extraneous pressure from someone and was not able to take independent decisions. It was facilitating and giving a free hand to the inquiry officer to prove the charges at any pretext by foul play. Despite the fact that PW-1 Mr. Sonu Lal Sharma, specifically mentioned that he did not want to give evidence in the inquiry, the inquiry officer manipulated the situation and to ensure proving of the charges chose an unusual way to procure his statement.
The inquiry officer fixed the place of inquiry at Mathura Junction, a nearby place to the residence of the witness.
2.3 The applicant happened to lay his hands on a letter dated 06.10.2021 issued by third respondents directing the Disciplinary Authority to incorporate the new evidence i.e. material mentioned therein and additional prosecution witness in the inquiry proceedings. In this way, whole action is being done at the dictation of vigilance and there is no application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority.
2.4 The action of the respondents is contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal and Anr, AIR 1991 SC 1507, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Disciplinary Authority cannot act under the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission or of the Central Government. The same issue came up for adjudication before Lucknow Bench of this tribunal in the case of Raja Ram Verma vs. Union of India and Arn., 2003 (3) SLJ CAT 365 , decided on 10.01.2023 wherein the Lucknow bench of this tribunal while placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi (supra) quashed the complete disciplinary proceedings. Terming the action of the respondents in initiating the disciplinary proceedings for major punishment, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the same.
3. As per the reply to the OA filed by the respondents, the co
