Disciplinary inquiries must ensure due process and fairness; age restrictions on inquiry officers can be exempted under specific provisions.

ORDER

Per: Mr. AnindoMajumdar, Administrative Member:

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 praying for the following relief(s):

“a) To set aside and quash impugned Charge Memorandum No. SER/P-HQ/GAZ- CON/410/A.K/18/MJR/1196 dated 14.11.2018 issued by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway

b) To set aside and quash impugned Order No. SER/P-HQ/GAZ-CON/410/A.K/18/ MJR/1196 dated 30.04.2019 appointing the Inquiry Officer as served under covering letter dated 01.05.2019

c) To set aside and quash impugned Order No. E(O)I-2020/PU-2/SER/59 dated 03.12.2020 issued by the Railway Board as communicated vide letter dated 14.12.2020

d) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. SER/P-HQ/GAZ-CON/410/A.K/18/ MJR/1196 dated 22.02.2021 issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer (Gaz) for General Manager (P).

e) To set aside and quash impugned Notice No. INQ/AK/SER dated 25.03.2021 issued by the Inquiry Officer.

f) To set aside and quash the inquiry proceeding conducted so far together with the prosecution brief as submitted by the P.O. under covering letter dated 12.03.2021 and Supplementary P.O. Brief under covering letter dated 19.07.2021.

g) Any other order or orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.”

2. Facts of the case:

2.1 The applicant is an Officer of the Indian Railway Stores Service (IRSS) who was appointed to the service on 01.09.2003 and is at present posted in the South Eastern Railway.

2.2 A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant, vide Memorandum dated 14^th November, 2018 issued by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway (Annexure A-1). Vide the said Memorandum the following Articles of charge were framed against the applicant:

“ Article of Charge-1

Shri Ajay Kumar, while working as Sr.DMM/S.E.C.Railway/NGP, had made several purchases of non-stock items requisitioned by the different consignees Electrical (General)/S.E.C.Railway/NGP. Shri Ajay Kumar had approved predetermined group of firms repetitively in the purchase proposals for issue of tender enquiry without taking any precaution to verify, whether the suggested sources were genuine suppliers for the indented items or otherwise.

Therefore, by doing so, The said Shri Ajay Kumar had failed to maintain healthy competition and had committed a serious irregularity by violating directives issued by Railway board vide letter no: 79/RS (G)/779/8 dated 16.06.1982, 01.02.1983 & 06.04.1983 respectively.

Article of Charge-II

Shri Ajay Kumar, while working as Sr.DMM/S.E.C.Railway/NGP, had accepted the tenders at exorbitant rates. Shri Ajay Kumar neither did explore minimum retail price of the tendered items from local market nor gave minimum effort in collecting or examining the LPR (Last purchase rate) data for same/similar item of zonal railways/other divisions of SECR. Instead, Shri Ajay Kumar had accepted lowest offers in a perfunctory manner based upon certification of rate reasonableness given by the indenter or budgetary rate provided by the indenting department in their requisitions.

Therefore, by doing so, Shri Ajay Kumar had failed to explore reasonableness of the accepted rate in the matter of Local purchase of stores; thus, causing financial loss to the Railways by ignoring directives issued Railway Board vide letter nos. 79F(S) I/PW- 7/2 dated 12.11.1979 & 79/RS (G)/779/8 dated 16.06.1982, 22.11.1982, 01.02.1983 & 06.04.1983 respectively in the matter of local purchase of stores.

Article of Charge-III

Shri Ajay Kumar, while working as Sr.DMM/S.E.C.Railway/NGP, had accepted the offer of lowest suitable tenderer for an item with multiple make/brands and accordingly purchase orders were issued. Without insisting on one specific make/brand in the purchase order, there is a possibility of supply of lower make/brand (inferior qualit