ABHIMANYU LAMBA vs RAIL BHAWAN on 6 November 2026

:ORDER:

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

By virtue of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought for the following relief(s):- “i. Quash and set aside the Penalty Order bearing Number Z/SS/CON/DA/GAZ(AL/2023 dated 28.07.2023.

ii. Set aside Appellate order The Appellate Authority vide order Number ERB-I/2023/7/10 Dated 30.01.2026.

iii. Quash the Charge Sheet memo bearing Number Z/SS/CON/DA/GAZ(AL)2023 dated 08.05.2023 and declare it non-east.

iv. Pass any such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The factual matrix of the case, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant, is as follows:

2.1. The applicant is a Group ‘A’ officer of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE), recruited through the Engineering Services Examination, 2010 conducted by the UPSC. He is presently working as Director, Civil Engineering/B&S-I, Railway Board, New Delhi, and claims to have an unblemished service record, including having received the prestigious General Manager’s Award on two occasions.

2.2. The disciplinary proceedings in question relate to the applicant’s tenure in the Construction Organisation of North Frontier (NF) Railway, during which certain alleged lapses JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

concerning the Dimapur-Kohima project were attributed to him. According to the applicant, he was in charge of the concerned project for only about seven months, whereas the works in question were legacy works continuing from earlier years.

2.3. The applicant was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2023, alleging that, after handing over charge on 08.04.2023 on his transfer, he had not reported at his new place of posting. The applicant submitted his reply on 19.04.2023, explaining that he had availed preparatory leave after handing over charge as he had urgent work at his hometown.

2.4. Another Show Cause Notice dated 19.04.2023 was issued in respect of three alleged deficiencies noticed during the inspection of the Dimapur-Kohima project, namely: (i) alleged deficiencies in the management of the Kohima Rest House contract, including non-extension of the contract and water- supply arrangements; (ii) non-revision of General Arrangement Drawings (GADs) of RCC box bridges; and (iii) failure to take timely slope-protection measures at Portal-1 of Tunnel No. 10.

2.5. The applicant submitted a detailed, point-wise reply, contending, inter alia, that he had taken corrective measures after assuming charge, raised the issue of defects in the Rest House work, corresponded with the concerned authorities regarding water supply, sought the contractor’s planning for extension of the contract, and maintained that the slope- JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

protection work had been executed in accordance with the approved drawings and on the advice of technical experts.

2.6. Thereafter, a minor-penalty charge memorandum dated 08.05.2023 was issued to the applicant under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The applicant submitted his reply on 12.07.2023, reiterating his earlier submissions. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the minor penalty of “Censure” vide order dated 28.07.2023.

2.7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Railway Board. The matter was referred to the UPSC for its advice, which was tendered on 29.09.2025. According to the applicant, the UPSC held Charge No. 1(i) as “Proved”, Charge Nos. 1(ii), 1(iii) and 2 as “Not Proved”, and Charge No. 3 as “Only Partially Proved”.

2.8. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 30.01.2026, rejected the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed upon the applicant. The applicant’s principal grievance is that the UPSC advice was supplied to him only along with the appellate order and that he was not afforded an opportunity to submit a representation against the said advice before the appeal was decided.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and concluded in a JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

mechanical and arbitrary manner, without any preliminary fact- finding enquiry, despite the applicant having raised serious factual disputes and furnished a detailed reply supported by documents. It was contended that the charge memorandum substantially reproduced the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notices without objectively examining the applicant’s defence, thereby rendering the proceedings arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had been held responsible for legacy issues pertaining to works that had been continuing since 2019, although his tenure in the concerned project was only about seven months. It was argued that the applicant had taken several corrective and remedial measures after assuming charge, but the respondents selectively proceeded against him while ignoring the role and omissions of previous incumbents. According to the applicant, such action was contrary to the principles of fairness, equality and non- arbitrariness governing administrative action.

3.2. Learned counsel contended that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the advice of the UPSC were inconsistent. According to him, the UPSC found several charges to be either “Not Proved” or “Only Partially Proved”, thereby necessitating an objective reconsideration of the material on record. JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

3.3. The principal grievance advanced on behalf of the applicant was that the documents relied upon in support of the allegations were not supplied to him before the disciplinary action culminating in the imposition of the penalty of “Censure”. It was contended that, in the absence of such documents, the applicant was deprived of an effective opportunity to controvert the allegations and substantiate his defence. Learned counsel submitted that the mere furnishing of a statement of imputations could not substitute the supply of relevant documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority.

3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the UPSC advice was not supplied to the applicant before the disposal of his appeal. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, and Para 5 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2014, it was argued that the applicant ought to have been afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the UPSC advice before the Appellate Authority took its final decision.

3.5. It was further contended that the UPSC advice contained certain factual and procedural errors, including an allegedly incorrect assumption regarding the date on which the applicant assumed charge and an observation concerning annexures to the charge memorandum which, according to the applicant, had not been supplied to him. It was argued that the applicant was JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

prejudiced by the denial of an opportunity to point out these errors before the appellate decision was taken.

3.6. Learned counsel also contended that the penalty order was a non-speaking order, unsupported by cogent reasons or evidence. It allegedly failed to identify the specific rule or instruction violated by the applicant and did not adequately deal with his documentary defence. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 200/2017, titled Kanwal Dass (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the O.A. and submitted that the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed upon the applicant were in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. It was argued that Rule 11 of the said Rules does not mandate a preliminary enquiry or investigation before issuance of a minor-penalty charge memorandum in Standard Form-11. According to the respondents, the applicant was informed in writing of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and was afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his representation. A statement of imputations was supplied along with the minor-penalty charge memorandum dated 08.05.2023, to which the applicant submitted his representation dated 12.07.2023. JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

4.1. The respondents further submitted that the charges levelled against the applicant were duly considered by the competent authority on the basis of the material available on record and that the penalty of “Censure” was imposed upon him vide the impugned order. It was contended that the applicant had been afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself during the disciplinary proceedings.

4.2. It was further submitted that the applicant preferred an appeal, which was referred to the UPSC for obtaining its advice in accordance with the applicable rules. The UPSC, vide its advice dated 29.09.2025, observed that there was no merit in the appeal and that the penalty of “Censure” was not excessive. The Appellate Authority, after considering the UPSC advice and the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the appeal vide order dated 30.01.2026. According to the respondents, the decision was taken after independent application of mind and was communicated to the applicant in accordance with the applicable rules.

4.3. The respondents denied the allegations of procedural irregularity, non-application of mind and arbitrariness. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the competent authorities were based on the material available on record and that the applicant could not seek re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of the view taken by the disciplinary authority in proceedings before this Tribunal. JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

4.4. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents submitted that the O.A. was devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings and the documents placed on record.

6. The following issues arise for consideration in the present O.A. (i) whether the non-supply of relevant documents relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings deprived the applicant of a reasonable and effective opportunity to defend himself; and (ii) whether the rejection of the applicant’s appeal without furnishing the UPSC advice before the appellate decision and without affording him an opportunity to represent against the same vitiates the impugned appellate order.

7. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the mere absence of a preliminary enquiry does not, by itself, render disciplinary proceedings for imposition of a minor penalty invalid. Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, prescribes the procedure applicable to minor penalties and requires that the Railway servant be informed of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make his representation.

8. However, the applicability of the procedure prescribed for minor penalties does not dispense with the obligation of the disciplinary authority to act fairly and in accordance with the JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

principles of natural justice. The opportunity contemplated under the Rules must be real and effective and not merely a formal opportunity to submit an explanation.

9. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the applicant relate to technical and administrative matters concerning the Dimapur-Kohima project, including the management of the Kohima Rest House contract, revision of GADs of RCC box bridges and slope-protection measures at Portal-1 of Tunnel No. 10. The applicant has maintained that he had taken corrective measures after assuming charge and that the works in question were either legacy works or had been executed in accordance with approved drawings and technical advice.

10. The applicant has specifically contended that the documents relied upon in support of the imputations of misconduct were not supplied to him before the disciplinary action culminating in the imposition of the penalty of “Censure”. The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the statement of imputations was supplied along with the charge memorandum and that the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit his representation.

11. In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish between the supply of a statement of imputations and the supply of relevant documents relied upon in support of those imputations. While JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

the statement of imputations informs the employee of the allegations against him, the relevant relied-upon documents enable him to examine the factual basis of those allegations and effectively controvert the same. The mere submission of a reply to the charge memorandum cannot, by itself, establish that an effective opportunity of defence was afforded if material documents necessary for answering the allegations were not made available to the employee.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 229, emphasised the importance of furnishing relevant documents and material necessary to enable a delinquent employee to effectively defend himself in disciplinary proceedings. The principles of natural justice require that an employee should not be placed at a disadvantage by being denied access to material relied upon against him, particularly where such material is necessary to explain or rebut the allegations.

13. The legal position, however, is not that every procedural irregularity automatically invalidates disciplinary proceedings. The nature and relevance of the documents withheld, their bearing on the allegations, and the resulting prejudice to the employee must be considered in the facts of each case. Where relevant documents necessary for an effective defence are withheld, the resulting denial of a reasonable opportunity may vitiate the disciplinary decision. JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

14. In the present case, the applicant has consistently raised the grievance that the documents necessary for his defence were not supplied before the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of “Censure”. The allegations concern technical and administrative decisions relating to ongoing construction works, and the applicant has sought to explain the circumstances in which those decisions were taken, the corrective measures adopted by him and the technical basis of the work executed. In such circumstances, the availability of the relevant records assumes considerable significance.

15. The respondents’ contention that the applicant submitted a detailed reply to the charge memorandum does not, by itself, resolve the issue of non-supply of documents. The relevant question is whether the applicant had access to the material relied upon against him and was thereby afforded a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations. The opportunity to submit a representation cannot be regarded as effective if the material necessary to formulate the defence has been withheld.

16. We, therefore, find that the issue of non-supply of relevant documents goes to the fairness of the disciplinary process itself. Where the employee is required to answer technical allegations without being furnished the relevant material relied upon in support thereof, the disciplinary authority must demonstrate that a fair and effective opportunity of defence was nevertheless JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

afforded. The mere fact that the penalty imposed is a minor penalty does not dilute this requirement.

17. The applicant has also challenged the appellate order on the ground that the UPSC advice dated 29.09.2025 was supplied to him only along with the appellate order dated 30.01.2026. According to the applicant, he was thereby deprived of an opportunity to point out the factual and procedural errors allegedly contained in the advice before the Appellate Authority took its decision.

18. In Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the requirement of furnishing the UPSC advice to the delinquent employee before the competent authority takes its final decision. The judgment recognises the importance of providing an opportunity to the employee to respond to such advice where the applicable legal requirements so mandate. The DoPT Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2014, relied upon by the applicant, also requires consideration in the context of the applicable rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

19. In the present case, the UPSC advice was tendered on 29.09.2025, whereas the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 30.01.2026. The applicant’s specific grievance is that the advice was communicated only with the final appellate order. Consequently, he had no opportunity to submit a representation JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

against the observations contained therein before the appeal was decided.

20. The respondents have submitted that the Appellate Authority considered the UPSC advice and the relevant material independently. However, independent application of mind by the Appellate Authority does not, by itself, dispense with a procedural safeguard that is otherwise required under the applicable rules and principles of natural justice. Where the employee is entitled to an opportunity to respond to the UPSC advice before the decision is taken, furnishing the advice only after the decision has already been made defeats the purpose of such opportunity.

21. We are, therefore, of the view that the applicant’s grievance regarding non-furnishing of the UPSC advice before the disposal of the appeal raises a material procedural infirmity. The Appellate Authority was required to ensure compliance with the applicable procedural safeguards before taking its final decision. The subsequent communication of the advice along with the appellate order cannot substitute an opportunity to make a representation before the decision was taken.

22. It is well settled that this Tribunal, while exercising judicial review over disciplinary proceedings, does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and ordinarily does not undertake a fresh appreciation of JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

evidence. Nevertheless, judicial review is warranted where the decision-making process suffers from a material procedural irregularity or a violation of the principles of natural justice. The present case concerns the fairness of the procedure adopted in the disciplinary and appellate proceedings and not merely a disagreement with the findings on the individual charges.

23. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the failure to furnish relevant documents necessary for an effective defence, if established from the disciplinary record, materially affects the fairness of the proceedings culminating in the imposition of the penalty of “Censure”. The subsequent rejection of the appeal without affording the applicant the opportunity required by law to represent against the UPSC advice constitutes an additional procedural infirmity at the appellate stage.

24. In view of the aforesaid procedural infirmities, the impugned penalty order dated 28.07.2023 and the appellate order dated 30.01.2026 cannot be sustained in their present form. The applicant is entitled to a fair and effective opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the O.A. deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinbelow.

25. The Original Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned penalty order dated 28.07.2023 imposing the JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

minor penalty of “Censure” upon the applicant and the appellate order dated 30.01.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside.

26. The respondents shall furnish to the applicant the relevant documents relied upon in support of the imputations of misconduct, to the extent the same have not already been supplied and subject to the applicable rules. The applicant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his representation on the basis of such documents. The UPSC advice dated 29.09.2025 shall also be furnished to the applicant, and he shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his representation thereon before any fresh decision is taken.

27. Thereafter, the competent authority shall reconsider the matter in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles of natural justice, taking into consideration the applicant’s representation, the relevant material on record and the UPSC advice dated 29.09.2025. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after due application of mind to the applicant’s defence and the material available on record.

28. Insofar as the charge memorandum dated 08.05.2023 is concerned, we find no sufficient ground, on the material presently available on record, to quash the same merely on account of the procedural infirmities identified in the subsequent disciplinary and appellate decision-making process. The non- JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE

supply of relevant documents and the failure to afford an opportunity to represent against the UPSC advice warrant corrective action in accordance with law, however, they do not, by themselves, establish that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was without jurisdiction or inherently unlawful. Accordingly, the charge memorandum is not quashed at this stage. The competent authority shall, however, ensure strict compliance with the applicable rules and the principles of natural justice while proceeding further in the matter.

29. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S. Khati)

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)

Member (J)

/jk/ JUGAL KISHORE

JUGAL KISHORE