The Andhra Pradesh High Court has determined that while the Railway Vigilance Manual, 1996 is procedural and does not grant any entitlements to the accused party, disregarding the entire procedure is not acceptable because the procedure serves to protect railway employees from unfounded accusations.
Brief Facts:
In this instance, the individual in question, employed as a Travelling Ticket Collector in the Indian Railways, faced accusations of misconduct during a decoy check conducted by the Railways' Vigilance Team in 1997. Subsequently, the petitioner imposed a penalty of Compulsory Retirement. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal overturned this decision in favour of the respondent. The present writ petition challenges the tribunal's ruling.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel argues that even in the event of a breach of the provisions outlined in the Vigilance Manual (specifically, Paras 704 and 705), such infractions should not automatically render the Departmental Proceedings invalid. The counsel contends that the violation should not serve as a basis for setting aside the imposed punishment.
He further submitted that the respondent appealed within the department to the Divisional Commercial Manager (DCM), thereby designating the Revisional Authority as the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (Dy. Head of the Department) in accordance with Rule 25(1)(b) of the Rules, 1968. According to the counsel, the Tribunal erred in a legal sense by annulling the revisional order on the grounds of jurisdictional deficiency.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel representing the respondent contended that the Vigilance Officer conducted the decoy check in contravention of the guidelines outlined in the Vigilance Manual. This, according to the counsel, renders the Departmental Proceedings based on such a Vigilance Enquiry flawed. The absence of an independent witness, the lack of appointment of a Presenting Officer by the employer, and the Enquiry Officer assuming the role of the presenting officer are cited as factors that compromised the fairness of the inquiry. The non-compliance with the mandatory provision of rule 9(21) of the Rules is also highlighted. The respondent, it is argued, was not adequately questioned about the circumstances presented against them in the evidence, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Further, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the revisional order lacked jurisdiction since the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager is not the competent authority, as per Rule 25 of the Rules, to act as the revisional authority.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench affirmed the Central Administrative Tribunal's order, relying on the precedent set in Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008). The court emphasized that, in determining the vitiating factors in departmental proceedings, one must consider the collective impact of irregularities and illegalities. In the present case, the railway authorities exhibited numerous deficiencies, leading to a compromise of the proceedings.
The Hon’ble Court concurred with the Tribunal's perspective that the prescribed procedure in the Manual was not followed, and there was a lack of substantial evidence supporting the authorities' case, resulting in the vitiation of the proceedings. Additionally, the division bench concluded that as per the Railways Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, the authority responsible for enhancement cannot be the Divisional Commercial Manager, given their rank as a Junior Administrative Grade Officer. Suo moto enhancement is deemed permissible only by an authority higher than the appellant authority.
The bench held that, once the proceedings were compromised, the question of imposing a penalty did not arise.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petition lacks merit.
Case Title: Union of India vs B.S Purushotham
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13000 of 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Venna Hemanth Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. K.R.K.V Prasad
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :