Case details

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal · Hyderabad Bench
Decided: 8 October 2026
Case number: O.A./107/2024
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Central Administrative Tribunal

Kande Shanker vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 8 October 2026

Cites 5, Cited by 0

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD

OA.No.021/107/2024

ORDER RESERVED ON : 16.09.2026

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 08.10.2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR.MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Between:

Kande Shanker. S/o. Kande Narasaiah,

Aged 66 years, Retd., Senior Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, R/o. H.No.29-1456/2/1, west Kakatiya Nagar, Hanuman Temple Lane, Naredmet, Hyderabad.

Mobile No 9052356426

Email. Kande_sankar57@yahoo.co.in

...Applicant

(By Advocate Mr.G.Trinadha Rao)

AND

1. Union of India Represented by the

Secretary (Estt), Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Railbhavan, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Railnilayam, Secunderabad

3. The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Railnilayam, Secunderabad

4. The General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751017.

….Respondents

(By Advocate Mr.V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.PC for CG)

e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

The applicant has filed this OA, seeking the following relief: “(i) To call for records leading to and connected with the Charge Memmorandum the charge memorandum No ECoR/Pers/Vig-D&A/GAZ/MUR/KS dated 22.08.2014, and the Inquiry report served on the applicant in pursuant thereto under the letter SCR/P-HQ/426(a) Con/P-9/162, dated 05.09.2022 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer and the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No 17 of 2013, and the proceedings No. E(0) 1-2023/ PU-2/ SCR/14, dated 26.04.2024, and declare and set aside the inquiry report including findings of inquiry officer as proved;

(ii) declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representations dated 6.10.2013 and 22.01.2024, and not dropping the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant in charge memorandum No ECOR/Pers/Vig-D&A/ GAZ/MUR/KS, dated 22.08.2014, on acquittal of the applicant in C.C.No 17 of 2013 in the judgment dated 20th January 2023 as illegal arbitrary contrary to rules; and

iii) Consequently, direct the respondents to drop the Disciplinary proceedings Initiated against the applicant in Charge meomorandum No ECOR/Pers/Vig-D&A/ GAZ/ MUR/KS, dated 22.08.2014, with all consequential benefits; and

iv) pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are he was initially appointed as Typist on 22.10.1977, and superannuated on 31.05.2017, having attained cadre of Senior Personnel Officer and having rendered 33 years of qualifying service.

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location:

3. The applicant has submitted that while working as Sr. Personnel Officer (E & HQ), he was implicated in a false CBI case registered on 11.7.2012, vide RC No 08 (A)2012-CBI-HYB C.C.No 17 of 2013, on the file of the Court of 1st Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, on the basis of report dated 11.7.2012 (Ex P-1 to the judgment) the complaint lodged by Ms Latha D/o Late. L. Sriramulu, that the applicant demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and directed the complainant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as 1st installment for considering her appointment in Group-D Post on Compassionate Ground in south Central Railway.

4. The applicant has further submitted that while the above Criminal case No C.C. No 17 of 2013, was pending adjudication on the very same material on which criminal proceedings were initiated in the above criminal case, the respondent-department issued charge memorandum to him, vide Charge Memorandum No. ECOR/Pers/Vig-D&A/GAZ/MUR/KS, dated 22.08.2014, levelling the following Articles of charge: “Article-1 That the said Shri Kande Shanker, the then SPO/SCR misused his official position for allegedly demanding bribe of an amount of Rs.10.000/- as first installment out of rs. 50,000/- from Smt S.Latha promising to consider her application for appointment in Group D post on compassionate ground in S.C Railway and accepted a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- on 11.7.2012 as the first installment by inducing and deceiving her. He was caught red-handed by CBI/AB/Hyderabad, while doing so on dt.11.7.2012. By the afore-said illegal acts, the said Shri Kande Shanker, the then SPO/E & HQ/SCR has committed grave misconduct as he

Location:

has failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner, unbecoming of a Railway servant, in violation of Rules 3-1 (i) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. He, therefore, has rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, as amended from time to time."

5. The applicant has further submitted that the departmental charge framed against him and the charge in the criminal case, and the evidence and listed witnesses in the both the proceedings are same. The inquiry officer, upon conducting the inquiry, in his report served under letter dated 05.09.2022 to the applicant, recorded a categorical finding that the charges mentioned in Article-I of the charge Memorandum viz., that the charged official demanded and accepted a amount of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from the complainant Smt.S.Latha with the false assurance to appoint her in a Group-D post on compassionate grounds, although he was neither dealing with the case nor was competent in this regard, are proved. However, the allegation about the total bribe amount was to be Rs.50,000/- has not been substantiated during the inquiry; Also, according to the applicant, the allegation on outraging the modesty of the complainant by charged official, during his visit to the lodge, has not been brought out during the Inquiry except by the complainant, which, in fact, is not the part of charge.

6. The applicant has further submitted that the Court of the 1st Additional Special judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, in the above CC No. 17 of 2013, upon on adjudication of the case, vide judgment dated 20.01.2023, had held that accused, the applicant herein, is found not guilty for offences under Section 417 and 509 of IPC and Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the

Location:

Act. The accused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The acquittal of the applicant is on merits and not based on any benefit of doubt or any Technical proposition. In as much as the charge in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal proceedings is one and the same, based on the very same material and same evidence the findings of the inquiry officer in its report proving the charges is contrary to law and it is a case of no evidence.

7. The applicant has further submitted that it is settled position of law by virtue of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in matters of G.M.Tank Vs State of Gujarat & Anr decided on 10th April 2006, that when the charges are same, both in criminal case and departmental proceedings, based on same material, evidence and witnesses, the same witnesses are examined in the criminal case and the Criminal Court, on the examination, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant with the finding that the charge has not been proved and it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the finding recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the above judgment, inasmuch as the applicant has been exonerated and the DAR proceedings, initiated against him, are required to be dropped.

8. The applicant has further submitted that he had submitted representations dated 6.10.2023, addressed to the 3rd respondents, and dated 22.01.2024 to the 2nd respondents, along with the copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble 1st

Location:

Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad in CC No 17. of 2013 wherein, he was found not guilty for the offences, cited by the CBI authorities, beyond all reasonable doubt and him was acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. As he retired on 31.05.2017, he requested the authorities for arranging the payment of balance settlement dues duly regulating the wages for the suspension period involved prior to suspension period at an early date. The said representations did not elicit any response.

9. The applicant has contended that once he was found not guilty of the charges in criminal case, the respondents are required under rules i.e., RBE No 54/1995, dated 07.06.1995, circulated under Serial Circular No.82 of 1995, dated 6.7.1995, to review the departmental proceedings initiated on the very same set of facts, witnesses and evidence and drop the departmental proceedings. In the instant case, despite the submission of representations dated 6.10.2023 and 22.1.2024, by him along with the copy of judgment in CC No 17 of 2013, the authorities have failed to review the departmental proceeding initiated in the charge memorandum No ECOR/Pers/Vig-D&A/ GAZ/MUR/KS, dated 22.08.2014, which is based on the same set of facts, witnesses and evidence, and failed to drop the departmental proceedings.

10. The applicant has further contended that although he was empanelled in the proceedings No.E(GP)2009/3/5(Personnel), dated 14.8.2012, to Group A Junior Scale w.e.f 09.07.2012, he was not promoted for the same on the pretext that initiation of D&A proceedings are pending against him, and, in fact, at the relevant point of time, no D&A proceedings were initiated against him and all

Location:

his juniors were promoted to Group A Junior Scale. The representations submitted by him did not elicit any response.

11. The applicant has further contended that he is a cardiac patient having under gone open heart surgery in care hospital at Nampally Hyderabad, and in view of the facts stated above, in as much as, in the criminal proceedings initiated against him in CC No.17 of 2013, and he was found not guilty the D & A proceedings initiated against him, the charges levelled against him in the charge Memorandum No ECOR/Pers/Vig-D&A/GAZ/MUR/KS, dated 22.08.2014, are required to be dropped and he is entitled to be promoted on par with juniors to Group A Junior scale with all consequential benefits.

12. The applicant has, therefore, contended that feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation and reviewing the departmental proceedings on his acquittal in criminal case for dropping the departmental proceedings, he filed the present OA, seeking the above relief, on the following grounds:

(i) The action of the respondents in not reviewing the departmental proceedings on acquittal of the applicant in criminal case, which is based on the same set of facts, witnesses and evidence as in the case of departmental proceedings, is contrary to law and the departmental proceedings are liable to be set aside;

(ii) In as much as the departmental proceedings initiated against him on the same set of facts, witnesses and evidence as in the criminal proceedings in CC No.17 of 2013, in which he was found not

Location:

guilty by the judgment of the 1st Additional Special judge for CBI cases Hyderabad, not under benefit of doubt or technical consideration, the departmental proceedings ought to have been dropped as per the settled law in matters of G.M.Tank Vs State of Gujarat & Anr decided on 10th April 2006.

(iii) In as much as in the criminal case CC No.17 of 2013, when the charges are same both in criminal case and departmental proceedings based on same material, evidence and witnesses, the same witnesses are examined in the criminal case and the Criminal Court, on the examination, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the applicant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the applicant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive on part of the respondents to allow the finding recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.

13. The respondents 1 to 3 have contested the OA by filing a detailed reply statement. They have submitted that the applicant while working as Senior Personnel Officer/HQ/SCR (South Central Railway), was caught red handed by the CBI/ACB/Hyderabad on 11.07.2012, while demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.10,000/- as first instalment, out of Rs. 50,000/- from Smt. S. Latha, promising to consider her application for appointment in Group-D post on compassionate ground in South Central Railway, by inducing and deceiving her. A case was registered against him under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988. The

Location:

applicant was produced before the Hon'ble Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 12.07.2012, and the Hon'ble Judge sent the applicant to judicial custody. Further, the SP/CBI/HYB had advised to keep the applicant under suspension with immediate effect and to shift his lien to a distant place during the period of suspension to ensure that the witnesses are not influenced and evidence is not tampered with. The applicant was placed under deemed suspension, vide Order No. SCR/P-HQ/438/CON/P-9/141, dated 23.07.2012 issued by General Manager/ South Central Railway, with effect from 12.07.2012, i.e from the date he was sent to judicial custody. The applicant was released on bail on 08.09.2012. Since the applicant was under suspension and the Board had issued transfer orders to East Coast Railway, his suspension was revoked in order to carry out his transfer. The applicant was transferred to East Coast Railway.

14. The respondents have further submitted that in E.Co Railway, a Major Penalty DAR action was initiated against the applicant, vide Major Penalty Charge Memorandum dated 22.08.2014. After considering the applicant's representation dated 27.08.2014, against the charge memorandum, the General Manager/E.Co.R, as the Disciplinary Authority had nominated Shri Lokanath Sadhaangi, Retired Member/RCT & Ex-CTM/E.COR, as Inquiry Officer, and Shri. Debasis, DBO/GM(V).E.Co.Rly, as Presenting Officer. However, the disciplinary proceedings could not be progressed as this Tribunal, had stayed the departmental proceedings, vide interim order dated 23.04.2015 passed in OA No.554/2015, filed by the applicant, before this Tribunal. Meanwhile, the applicant was transferred to South Central Railway. On his transfer to SCR, the

Location:

DAR case was transferred by E.Co Railway, vide letter dated 26.04.2017. On the vacation of stay by this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.08.2021 in OA No. 554/2015, the GM/SCR, as Disciplinary Authority, had remitted the case to Inquiry with Sri V.Srihari, Retd., PCE/SCR, as Inquiry Officer and Sri M. Narender, Chief Vigilance Inspector (Persl)/SCR, as Presenting Officer. After following the due procedure, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report dated 10.08.2022, holding the charge as "Proved". A Copy of the IO's report was made available to the applicant enabling him to submit his representation against the same. On the receipt of IO's report, the applicant vide his letter dated 21.09.2022, requested the General Manager & the Disciplinary Authority, to permit him one month's time to submit his representation against the IO's report. The General Manager, the Disciplinary Authority, had accepted the request and permitted the applicant to submit his representation by 20.10.2022. The applicant had submitted his representation dated 14.10.2022, which was received on 19.10.2022, in which he had requested the General Manager, the Disciplinary Authority, to re-visit his defence brief and exonerate him from the charge. The Disciplinary Authority, viz., the GM/SCR, after considering all the relevant records/facts of the case, recommended for imposition of penalty of suitable cut-in-pension on the applicant, and further referred the case to Railway Board in terms of Rule 10(3) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, as the penalty intended to be imposed was not within his competence, in terms of Schedule-III of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The case file was sent to the Railway Board by SC Railway, vide letter dated 06.03.2023, along with the GM's observations. It was provisionally decided by the President that the case

Location:

merits imposition of suitable penalty of cut-in-pension on the applicant and in terms of Rule 9 of RS (Pension) Rules, 1993, which could be imposed in prior consultation with UPSC only. The case was referred to UPSC for their considered advice, vide letter dated 29.03.2023. The UPSC have tendered their advice, vide letter dated 08.04.2024. The President, after taking into consideration the charge memorandum dated 22.08.2014, IO's report dated 10.08.2022, representation dated 14.10.2022 of the applicant, the judgment dated 20.01.2023, passed by the Court of Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, and all other relevant records/facts of the case including the advice of UPSC dated 08.04.2024, imposed the penalty of "Withholding of 50% (fifty percent) of monthly pension otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of ten (10) years and withholding of 100% gratuity admissible to him permanently." The Railway Board, vide their letter No E(O)I-2023/PU- 2/SCR/14 dated 26.04.2024, communicated the decision of the President for the imposition of the penalty of "Withholding of 50% (fifty percent) of monthly pension otherwise admissible to applicant for a period of ten(10) years and with holding of 100% gratuity admissible to him permanently". The penalty order dated 26.04.2024, together with UPSC's advise was communicated by Railway Board, vide their letter No. E(O)I-2023/PU-2/SCR/14, dated 26.04.2024 and was served on the applicant and the applicant submitted a mercy appeal on 10.05.2024, addressed to the President of India against the said penalty order requesting to reconsider the order. The Mercy appeal of the applicant was forwarded to the Railway Board on 20.06.2024. In response to the same, the Railway Board, vide their letter dated 28.10.2024, have informed that the President, after considering the Mercy appeal dated 10.05.2024, and all other

Location:

relevant records/facts of the case and after independent application of mind, decided to reject the aforesaid mercy appeal dated 10.05.2024, as being devoid of any merits.

15. The respondents have further submitted that in a SPE investigatin case, the Railway Board had communicated CVC’s advice for initiation of Regular Departmental action for imposition of Major Penalty on the applicant in addition to prosecution. In pursuance of CVC’s advice, the applicant has been issued with Major Penalty Charge Memorandum dated 22.08.2014, with the allegation that he misused his official position for demanding bribe of an amount of Rs.10,000/- as first installment out of Rs. 50,000/- from Smt. S. Latha. promising to consider her application for appointment in Group-D post on compassionate ground in South Central Railway.

16. The respondents have contended that it is a settled law that the simultaneous initiation of departmental proceedings and criminal case before the Hon'ble Courts is permissible and the Courts have justified simultaneous proceedings in a number of cases. Kind attention is drawn to DOP&T OM dated 21.07.2016 which has categorically stated that - "Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of departmental enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, an

Location:

incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstance or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the corporation."

Further, according to the respondents, “though the charges levelled in the CBI case as well as in the Regular Departmental Action appear to be similar in nature, but, the standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a Criminal Case and in a Departmental Proceedings are distinct and different. Whereas, in Criminal case, it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubts, in Departmental Proceedings, “preponderance of probability would serve the purpose".

17. The respondents have further contended that the applicant demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from Smt. S. Latha with the false assurance to appoint her in a Group-D post on compassionate grounds although he was neither dealing with the case nor was competent in this regard. The applicant was caught red handed by the CBI/ACB/HYB, while accepting the bribe. The applicant has committed grave misconduct as he had failed to

Location:

maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner, unbecoming of a Railway Servant in violation or Rules 3-1 (i) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. "3. General. -- (1) Every railway servant shall at all times-

(i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty;

(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway servant;

18. The respondents have further contended that the act of the applicant in giving false promises and demanding and accepting bribe for an appointment on compassionate grounds which is not within his competence is highly condemnable and unacceptable. Further, going to a lodge on 11.07.2012 to appraise the position of sanction of secondary family pension to the dependent of the ex-employee, when the same was already sanctioned on 08.02.2012 by the Railway Administration, after a span of five months does not appear to be a genuine reason and raises doubts about the bonafides of his intention. Thus, by such Act, he has violated Railway Services (conduct) Rules.

19. The respondents have further contended that a perusal of the detailed report of the CBI dated 05.12.2012 reveals that the complainant was staying in Room No.50 of Everest Lodge near Secunderabad Railway Station. The complainant asked the applicant to come to Everest Lodge to collect the illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/-as per the plan. The applicant entered the Room No. 50, Everest Lodge at around 6.50 P.M. on 11.07.2012 and demanded the amount of Rs. 10,000/- The Complainant took out the tainted currency notes amounting Rs. 10,000/- from her handbag and handed the same to the applicant

Location:

and the applicant took the same and kept it in his pocket. The CBI team discovered the tainted notes from him and fingerprint of the applicant matches with the finger prints on the newspapers used to wrap the currency notes. In view of the above factual position, according to the respondents, the President, after taking into consideration of the charge memorandum dated 22.08.2014, IO's report dated 10.08.2022, representation dated 14.10.2022 submitted by the applicant and also considered the judgment dated 20.01.2023, passed by the Court of 1st Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, and all other relevant facts of the case, including the advice of UPSC dated 08.04.2024, imposed the penalty of withholding of 50% (fifty percent) of monthly pension otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of ten (10) years and withholding of 100% gratuity admissible to him permanently.

20. The respondents have further contended that the act of the applicant in giving false promises and demanding and accepting bribe for an appointment on compassionate grounds, which is not within his competence is highly condemnable and unacceptable. Further, going to a lodge on 11.07.2012 to appraise the position of sanction of secondary family pension to the dependent of the ex-employee, when the same was already sanctioned on 08.02.2012 by the Railway administration, after a span of five months does not appear to be a genuine reason and raises doubts about the bonafides of his intention. Thus, by such Act, he has violated Railway Services (conduct) Rules. Further, the cases, relied upon by the applicant, are different from the facts of the applicant's case.

Location:

21. The respondents have, therefore, contended that the applicant has not made any ground to be considered, and hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed, and prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA with costs.

22. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents 1 to 3, reiterating the facts stated in the OA.

23. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings on record.

24. As per the contention of the applicant, a false CBI case was registered on 11.07.2012, vide RC No.08 (A) 2012-CBI-HYB CC No.17 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, on the basis of report dated 11.07.2012, the complaint lodged by Ms.Latha, d/o late Sri L.Sriramulu, that the applicant demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as first instalment for considering her appointment in Group- D post on compassionate grounds in South Central Railway.

25. The applicant submitted that when the Criminal Case CC.No.17/2013, was pending adjudication, the respondents issued charge memo on 22.08.2015. The contention of the applicant is that the departmental charge framed against him and the charge in the criminal case and the evidence and listed witnesses in both the proceedings are based on the same material. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 05.09.2022, held the charges as proved. However, the allegations about the total bribe amount was to be Rs.50,000/- has not been substantiated

Location:

during the inquiry. Also, the allegation of outraging the modesty of the complainant (Smt.S.Latha) during his visit to the lodge, has not been brought out during the inquiry except by the complainant , which in fact is not the part of the charge.

26. The applicant has further submitted that the Court of I Additional Special Judge for CBI cases in its judgement dated 20.01.2023, held that the applicant is not found guilty for offences under Section 417 and 509 of IPC and Section 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. Therefore, he got acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.PC.

27. As per the contention of the applicant, his acquittal was on merit and not based on any benefit of doubt or any other technical proposition. Since the charge in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are one and the same, the finding of the Inquiry Officer in its report proving the charges becomes contrary to the law. In support of his contention, the applicant has quoted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat & Another, decided on 10.04.2006. The applicant submitted representations dated 06.10.2023 and 22.01.2024, with a request to the respondents for arranging the payment of balance settlement dues duly regulating the wages for the suspension period, but, the respondents have failed to response. The applicant’s contention is that on his acquittal in criminal case as per RBE No.54/1995, dated 07.06.1995, circulated under serial circular No.82/1995, dated 06.07.1995, the respondents should review the departmental proceedings initiated against him on the very same set of facts, witnesses and

Location:

evidence, and drop the departmental proceedings. Furthering his argument, the applicant submitted that though he was empanelled in the proceedings No.E(GP)2009/3/5 (Personnel), dated 14.08.2012, a Group-A Junior Scale w.e.f 09.07.2012, but, he was not promoted on the ground of initiation of D&A proceedings. Since all his juniors have been promoted to Group-A Junior Scale by dropping the proceedings initiated against them, he is entitled to promoted on par with his juniors to Group-A Junior Scale with all consequential benefits. The present OA has been filed by him on the inaction of the respondents in reviewing the departmental proceedings on his acquittal in criminal case.

28. Contesting the case, the respondents submitted that the applicant was caught red handed by the CBI/ACB/Hyderabad on 11.07.2012, and a case under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. On 12.07.2012, the applicant was sent to judicial custody. The applicant was placed under deemed suspension, vide order No.SCR/P-HQ/438/CON/P-9/141, dated 23.07.2012. The applicant was released on bail on 08.09.2012. But, when the applicant was transferred to East Coast Railway, his suspension was revoked.

29. The respondents have submitted that in East Coast Railway, a major penalty DAR action was initiated against the applicant, vide major penalty charge memo dated 22.08.2014, and after considering his representation dated 27.08.2014, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. But, by filing OA.No.554/2015, the applicant obtained stay of inquiry from this Tribunal on 23.04.2015. Meanwhile, the applicant got transferred to South Central Railway, therefore, the DAR case was transferred by the East Coast

Location:

railway, vide letter dated 26.04.2017. The Tribunal vacated its stay, vide order dated 10.08.2021. After following the due procedure, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report dated 10.08.2022, by holding the charge as proved. The applicant in his representation dated 21.09.2022, requested the General Manager and the Disciplinary Authority to permit him one month’s time to submit his representation against Inquiry Officer’s report. The applicant submitted his representation dated 14.10.2022, which was received by the respondents on 19.10.2022, in which he had requested the Disciplinary Authority to re-visit his defense brief and exonerate him from the charge. The Disciplinary Authority, after examination of the relevant records and facts of the case, recommended for imposition of penalty of suitable cut in pension and referred the case to Railway Board in terms of Rule 10(3) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

30. It was provisionally decided by the President that the case merits imposition of suitable penalty of cut in pension on the applicant in terms of Rule 9 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which could be imposed in prior consultation with UPSC only. The case was referred to UPSC on 29.03.2023. The UPSC tendered their advice, vide letter dated 08.04.2024. The President, after taking into consideration the charge memorandum dated 22.08.2014, Inquiry Officer’s report dated 10.08.2022, representation dated 14.10.2022 of the applicant, the judgment dated 20.01.2023, passed by the Court of Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, and all other relevant records/facts of the case including the advice of UPSC dated 08.04.2024, imposed the penalty of withholding of 50% of monthly pension

Location:

otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of 10 years and withholding of 100% gratuity admissible to him permanently. Thereafter, the railway Board, vide letter No.E(O)I-2023/PU-2/SCR/14, dated 26.04.2024, communicated the decision of the President on imposition of the penalty along with UPSC advice to the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a mercy appeal on 10.05.2024, against the said penalty order requesting for reconsideration of the order. The mercy appeal of the applicant was forwarded to the Railway Board, on 20.06.2024, and the Railway Board vide letter dated 28.10.2024, informed that the President, after considering the mercy appeal dated 10.05.2024, and all other relevant records/facts of the case, and after independent application of mind, decided to reject the aforesaid mercy appeal as being devoid of any merit.

31. The respondents have further submitted that the Railway Board has communicated CVC’s advice for initiation of regular departmental action for imposition of major penalty on the applicant in addition to prosecution, and in pursuance of the CVC’s advice, only the applicant has been issued charge memorandum dated 22.08.2014.

32. The respondents have further contended that the DOPT OM dated 21.07.2016, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M.(PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (2005 (7) SCC 764), categorically stated that – "Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different

Location:

fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of departmental enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, an incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstance or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the corporation."

33. It has been reaffirmed in a catena of cases that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations. In State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 = AIR 1997 SC 13 = 1997 (1) LLJ 746 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the need for initiating departmental proceedings in such cases in these words: “It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that the undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanor is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the

Location:

guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements.”

34. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry (2004 (10) SCALE 340), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 9 of its judgment has held as under: “It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.”

35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India & Another (AIR1964 SC 787) has held that – “If the trial of the criminal charge results in conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound to follow against the public servant so convicted. Even in case of acquittal proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable.”

36. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that – “Ratio in the G.M.Tank judgment should not be misconstrued to mean that no departmental proceedings are permissible in all cases of acquittal or that in such cases the penalty already imposed would have to be set aside. What the Hon’ble Court has held that is no departmental inquiry would be permissible when the evidence clearly establishes that no charge against the Government servant may be made out.”

Location:

37. It is also brought out by the respondents that the explanation of the applicant, that he has gone to lodge on 11.07.2012 to appraise the position of sanction of secondary family pension to the dependent of the ex-employee, when the same was already sanctioned on 08.02.2012, by the respondents, brings out the falsehood of the applicant.

38. The contention of the applicant that he has gone to bring to the notice of the dependents of the ex-employee about the secondary family pension after a span of 05 months raises doubts about the bonafides of his intention. Room No.50 of Everest Lodge, near Secunderabad Railway Station, was occupied by the complaint (Smt.S.Latha) and it is also noted that the applicant entered in this Room No.50 of Everest Lodge at round 06.50 pm on 11.07.2012. the CBI team has discovered the tainted notes from him and the fingerprint of the applicant matches with the finger prints on the newspapers used to wrap the currency notes.

39. The First Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderbaad, in its judgment in CC.No.17/2013, observed that “the cumulative effect of these findings is that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused much less beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 417 and 509 of IPC and Section 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution”.

Location:

40. The Inquiry Officer in his report submitted “charges mentioned in Article I of the charge Memorandum, viz. that CO demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from the complainant Smt. S. Latha with the false assurance to appoint her in a group-D post on compassionate grounds although he was neither dealing with the case nor was competent in this regard, are Proved. However, the allegation about the total bribe amount was to be Rs. 50,000/- has not been substantiated during the Inquiry; Also, the allegation on outraging the modesty of the complainant by CO during his visit to the lodge not been brought out during the Inquiry, except by the complainant”. In none of the representations, the applicant is claiming about not visiting the Room No.50. He is simply contending to get exonerated on the ground of acquittal in criminal case. Applicant is not denying the receipt of Rs.10,000/-. The charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification has been sufficiently proven in the departmental inquiry. The said penalty has been imposed by the respondents after considering all facts including the judgement dated 20.01.2023, and the representation of the applicant dated 14.10.2022. the case was also reviewed after the acquittal by the Court of I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, that the acquittal is subsequent to the final penalty orders. The departmental inquiry is always on ‘preponderance of probability’. In the case of Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Others (1997 (2) SCC 699 (three Judges), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8, has held as under: "The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided

Location:

that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.”

41. Therefore, even though the charges levelled in the CBI cases as well as in the regular departmental action appears to be same in nature, but, the standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal case, and, in a departmental proceedings, are totally different. In criminal case, it is essential to prove that the charge beyond all reasonable doubts, but, in departmental proceedings preponderance of probabilities would serve the purpose. Preponderence of probabilities means a claim which is considered proved, if it is more likely to be true than not. In the present case, it is proved that the applicant demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- and was caught red handed by the CBI. The applicant committed grave misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity.

42. With the above deliberations, we do not find any merit in the OA, and the OA, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. All miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHALINI MISRA)

(MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

/DSN/

Location: