KRISHNA KANT SAHU vs M/o Railways on 31 December 2018

1. 1. Union of India represented by The General Manager, South Central Railway, 3^rd Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 500025,

2. 2. The Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), South Central Railway, 3^rd Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.,

3. 3. The Chief Medical Superintendent,, South Central Railway, Nanded Division, Nanded, Maharashtra State,

4. 4. The Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, South Central Railway,

Maharashtra State.

... Respondents

Counsel for the applicant : Mr. KRKV Prasad Counsel for the respondents : Mr.S.M.Patnaik, SC for Railways

C O R A M :

THE HON'BLE MR .JUSTICE L NARASIMHA REDDY, CHAIRMAN THE HON'BLE MR. B.V.SUDHAKAR, MEMBER (A)

2OA/021/1172/2018ORAL ORDER

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman)

The CBI laid a trap against one Mr.B.Suresh, Health and Malaria Inspector, AWB, South Central Railway. The applicant herein is another employee holding the same post in the Railways. During the course of the investigation, CBI is said to have recorded the statement of the applicant under Section 161 Cr.PC.

1. 2. The CBI instituted criminal proceedings before the competent court, in relation to the raid. On its part, the Department initiated regular disciplinary proceedings against Mr. B.Suresh. The applicant herein was cited as a witness in both the proceedings. The applicant is said to have not stood by his statement recorded by the CBI u/s 161 CrPC. A memorandum of charges dated 01.10.2018 was issued to him alleging that he retracted from his statement with mala fide intention, to benefit the charged employee viz., Mr B.Suresh.

2. 3. The applicant contends that the CBI prepared a statement in the course of the investigation and he was required to sign therein and in the disciplinary proceedings, he narrated the facts which he believed to be true. It is stated that the disciplinary authority is not competent to draw inference as regards correctness or otherwise of the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC and that the deviation from his statement cannot constitute misconduct. Other grounds are also pleaded.


OA/021/1172/2018

4. Respondents were given opportunity to file counter affidavit by today. However, it has not been filed so far. Since the entire issue turns purely on application of principles of law, the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents heard at length.

5. The charge framed against the applicant in the impugned memo reads as under:

"That Shri Krishna Kant Sahu, H&MI/CMS/O/NED while working as such has given statements during the CBI's inquiry pertaining to a trap case against Sri B.Suresh, the then H&MI/AWB Stn., and later retracted from them in a DAR Inquiry conducted by S.C.Railway with regard to the same CBI's trap case, with a malafide intention to benefit the charged Employee, Sri B.Suresh, the then H&MI/AWB Station. Shri Krishna Kant Sahu, H&MI/CMS/O/NED had, thus, involved in foul play by stating contrary version during the DAR inquiry against Sri B.Suresh, the then H&MI/AWB Stn. conducted by S.C.Railway on 05.02.2016.

Thus, Shri Krishna Kant Sahu, H&MI/CMS/O/NED had failed to maintain high ethical standards & honesty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant, thereby contravened Rules 3(1)(vi) and 3(1)(iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

6. From this, it is evident that there is no allegation of misconduct or insubordination or misappropriation against the applicant. The only act attributed is that he has retracted from his statement in the DAR inquiry. This conclusion was drawn by comparing it with the statement recorded by the CBI.

7. The reliability of the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC has its own limitations. It can never be taken on its face value unless corroborated *[Handwritten signature]*

OA/021/1172/2018

by other acceptable evidence. Such a statement cannot be treated as reflecting a particular state of affairs. Even where the witness retracts from the statement in the course of the criminal proceedings, very rarely we can come across the instances of punishing the witness, on that count. The reason is that it would be too difficult to decide as to which among the two versions viz., one contained in the recorded statement and the one spoken to the court, is true.

8. The things would have been different, had it been the case where the statement of the applicant was recorded in the course of preliminary inquiry in the Department and he retracted from the same before the Inquiry Officer. This is not even the allegation here. The Disciplinary Authority cannot take the statement recorded by the CBI as the basis, to test the truthfulness of the applicant, much less, to treat it as an act of indiscipline.

9. We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside the impugned charge memo. There shall be no order as to costs.

प्रमाणित प्रत CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

केस संख्या CASE NUMBER OA 1172/2018 निर्णय का तारीख DATE OF JUDGEMENT 31-12-2018 कॉपी बनाई गई थी BY ON 29-1-2019

Nino 29/1/19 सहायक अधिकारी / Court Officer केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकारण Central Administrative Tribunal हैदराबाद म्याचपीस/Hyderabad Bench