Delhi High Court
Uoi & Anr. vs Shri Chander Bhan Singh on 17 July, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: July 17, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 1550/2012
UOI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate with
Mr.Abhishek Yadav, Advocate
versus
SHRI CHANDER BHAN SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Jayasree Narasimhan, Advocate
with Mr.Ritam Khare and
Mr.Sudershan Rajan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are setting
aside the impugned order dated January 28, 2011 and
simultaneously restoring OA No.2272/2009 for fresh adjudication.
2. The reason is that notwithstanding the Tribunal having
correctly understood the law declared by the Supreme Court in the
decision reported as (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 819 Monishankar Vs.
UOI & Anr. has applied the same in a very perfunctory manner.
3. In Monishankar's case the Supreme Court held that a mere
violation of paras 704 and 705 of the Indian Railway Vigilance
Manual would by itself not be sufficient to negate the findings of
guilt returned at a domestic inquiry. But, in conjunction with other
infirmities, errors or discrepancies, violation/non-adherence to the
said paragraphs of the Vigilance Manual would have to be
cumulatively taken into account and the conclusion drawn.
3. In the impugned decision we find expressions such as
'certain aspects of the evidence adduced', which expressions to
say the least do not guide a Writ Court as to which aspects were in
the mind of the Tribunal. It may be true that after said loose
expression has been used the Tribunal has noted 3 aspects
pertaining to the evidence, but in what manner they would
ultimately affect the report of the Inquiry Officer has not been
highlighted by the Tribunal.
4. It appears that the Tribunal was annoyed at the fact that an
earlier Original Application filed by the respondent had resulted in
the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority to take a
fresh decision with an opinion expressed by the Tribunal that the
Appellate Authority would pass a speaking order taking note of the
discrepancies/deficiencies alleged by the respondent and at the
remanded stage the Appellate Authority passed an order which did
not measure up to the expectation of the Court.
5. In such situation it would become the duty of the Tribunal to
re-appreciate the evidence with reference to the discrepancies
pointed out; and we clarify, the Tribunal is not to sit as an
Appellate Authority. The re-appreciation of the evidence has to be
as was done by the Supreme Court in Monishankar's case.
6. The reason was that the requirements of a statutory Railway
Manual not being complied with was opined by the Supreme Court
to be by itself not enough to set aside an inquiry. The law declared
was that in said circumstance the non-adherence to the Vigilance
Manual has to be kept in mind and thereafter evidence reappraised
with reference to other deficiencies alleged.
7. We clarify. We have not commented upon the merits of the
controversy.
8. Such facts which we have noted hereinabove are limited for
our opinion pertaining to the matter being remanded.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned
order dated January 28, 2011. OA No.2272/2009 is restored before
the Tribunal for adjudication on merits keeping in view the
directions issued by us in the present decision. Parties shall appear
before the Registrar of the Tribunal on August 05, 2013 who shall
list the Original Application before the Roster Bench.
10. No costs.
11. DASTI.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2013
mamta
