Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural rules; failure to meet such standards justifies dismissal of appeals.

J U D G M E N T (Dated this the 28^th day of July 2025)

Basant Balaji J., The Petitioner was the Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam and the Respondents were the Respondents therein. The Original Application was filed to call for entire records leading to Annexure A- 1, A-2 , A-4, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-13, A-16, A-18 ( to the limited extent of disallowing the prayer to set aside A-16) and A-20 and to set aside the same. The Petitioner also sought reinstatement with all service and monetary benefits, including the right to continue in service until superannuation. However, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by Ext. P1 order on 26 July 2016.

2. While serving as a Senior Commercial Clerk at Thiruvalla, the Petitioner was charged with committing serious irregularities. These charges asserted that he failed to uphold absolute integrity, demonstrate devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway employee. The core accusation was that he reissued tickets previously entered by Sri M. Karthikeyan without proper manual or system cancellation, thereby retaining the ₹30/- clerkage charge for his own benefit. Consequently, he was suspended immediately and received Annex.A4, comprising the memorandum of charges, along with detailed statements of articles of charge, imputation of misconduct, a list of witnesses, and a list of documents intended to substantiate the charges. The Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying charges levelled against him and requested that the memorandum may be withdrawn. A domestic enquiry was sought to be conducted, and an enquiry officer was appointed. A preliminary enquiry was conducted in the presence of the Applicant and the defence helper. Thereafter, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted at Palakkad, and the enquiry officer filed Annex.A-13 holding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner stand proved. Consequently, a penalty advice was issued on 28 December 2011 holding that the Petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in service and hence, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on him with immediate effect. 3. The Petitioner appealed his removal, which resulted in a partial modification by changing to compulsory retirement with 80% pension and 80% gratuity, as per Rule 64 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. He then filed a revision petition on 1 December 2012, seeking mercy and restoration of 100% pension and gratuity, but this was dismissed by Annex.A- 20. Consequently, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal, challenging both the punishment orders and the revisional authority’s decision. The Tribunal, after a detailed analysis, dismissed the application, stating that under judicial review, it could only examine the procedure followed, not every factual aspect.

4. The Petitioner’s counsel initially argued that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and required intervention because the inquiring authority failed to adhere to Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. This rule mandates that the inquiring authority may, after the Railway servant closes his case, and shall, if the Railway servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence to enable the Railway servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The counsel asserted that this mandatory provision was ignored.

5. This argument is addressed in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. After the presentation of documents and examination of witnesses, the Petitioner was asked to explain the adverse circumstances revealed by the evidence. However, he requested to provide