The Tribunal must ensure disciplinary proceedings afford reasonable opportunity to defend, even when inquiry is ex parte.

ORDER (By Circulation)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A) :

By way of the present R.A. filed by the Review Applicant (applicant in original lis), seeking review of the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in O.A. No. 504/2015, the relevant portion of the same reads as under: -

“10. With respect to issue (i) framed in para 9 above, i.e., whether the inquiry stood vitiated for want of reasonable opportunity to the applicant on account of (a) shifting the venue to Kaimganj despite his representation dated 19.12.2012 expressing apprehension of insecurity at that place, and (b) conducting the inquiry ex parte on 21.12.2012, we note the scheme of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Rule 9(12) mandates that where the charged official fails to appear, the Inquiry Officer shall direct the Presenting Officer to lead evidence and thereafter adjourn the proceedings to a subsequent date (not exceeding 30 days), while recording an order enabling the delinquent to seek discovery or production of documents within the stipulated period. Rule 9 (21) further requires that, after closure of the prosecution evidence, the Inquiry Officer must question the charged official, if he has not offered himself as a witness, so as to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him. Both provisions embody the overarching requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity to defend.

10.1 In the present case, although the applicant had objected to the Kaimganj venue through his representation dated 19.12.2012 and did not appear on the scheduled date of hearing i.e. on 21.12.2012, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to record evidence in his absence and submitted the inquiry report dated 28.12.2012 holding the charges proved. However, the inquiry report was subsequently supplied to the applicant vide letter dated 30.01.2013/04.02.2013 (Annexure A-6), pursuant to which he filed his detailed representation on 19.02.2013 (Annexure A-7). Additionally, the Appellate Authority afforded him a personal hearing on 01.07.2013.

10.2 In these circumstances, while an ex parte inquiry is not desirable, it does not per se vitiate the proceedings, provided that (i) the delinquent had due notice of the date and venue, and (ii) he was subsequently afforded an effective opportunity to meet the evidence and to make a representation before the disciplinary or appellate authority. The decisions relied upon by the applicant as well as those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) emphasise the necessity of reasonable opportunity, but they also recognise that where such opportunity is effectively extended at the post-inquiry stage, such as through supply of the inquiry report, opportunity to submit a representation, and/or a personal hearing in appeal, the object underlying Rule 9(12) of the Rules ibid stands substantially satisfied.

10.3 We further observe that a Charge Memorandum under Rule SF-5 was issued to the applicant on 26.04.2011, and the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 05.07.2011. A preliminary inquiry was thereafter fixed for 30.08.2011, which the applicant duly attended. Charge No.1 relates to the incident dated 05.06.2010, when the applicant was functioning as Conductor in the AC 2-Tier coach of Train No. 2628 (Karnataka Express) on the Delhi-Itarsi route. It is alleged that he harassed and mentally humiliated a lady passenger (Ticket No. 22103622), spoke to her in a manner containing sexual overtones, and wrongfully accused her of identity mismatch and possessing an invalid ticket. It is further alleged that he forcibly escorted her to the AC First Class coach, detained her there for about 45 minutes, and demanded money from her. Charge No. 2 pertains to the allegation that the applicant subsequently approached the husband of the said lady passenger at Kaimganj, exerted pressure on him to withdraw the complaint, and