K RAM MOHAN RAO vs M/o Railways on 4 November 2026

ORDER

[As per Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member (Admn.)]

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s): “… to call for the records pertaining to

Order

No.GZ/2014030074/C.14-2114/KRR, date 01.08.2017 r/w Order No.GZ/2014030074/C.14-2114/KRR, dated 10.04.2017 and declare the action of the respondents in imposing/confirming the penalty of 'compulsory retirement' on the Applicant as null and void, illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and is in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(1) of the Constitution, and consequently quash and set aside the said orders with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the Applicant forthwith into service and grant all consequential benefits w.e.f. 10.04.2017, as if no penalty was imposed on the Applicant and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The applicant, while working as Travelling Ticket Inspector, Kacheguda, in the Hyderabad Division of the South Central Railway, was issued with a Charge Memorandum, dt. 15.04.2014, with two Articles of Charge, namely, (i) the applicant had demanded and collected Rs.200/- from a decoy passenger over and above the difference of fare from II Mail/ Express to Sleeper Class for 2 adults and did not issue Excess Fare Ticket for the same, while working on Train No.17064 from Secunderabad to Nanded; (ii) the applicant, while working on the said train, produced Rs.1250/- in excess of his railway cash.

(ii) After receipt of the charge memorandum, the applicant submitted a reply on 25.04.2014, pointing out the defects in the charge memo and seeking copies of the documents. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred from the Hyderabad Division to the Guntakal Division. The 3rd

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

Respondent, who did not issue the charge memo, originally, withdrew the same, vide Memo, dt. 28.05.2014, and issued a fresh Memorandum on 28.05.2014, by repeating the very same allegations, while changing the averments made in the Statement of Imputations of the earlier Charge Memo.

(iii) The applicant submitted his explanation to the said charge memo, dt. 28.05.2014, denying the allegations. It is stated that, even according to the Statement of Imputations, when the Decoy Passenger (Anil Kumar) approached the applicant / Charged Official along with another person (Akbar Ali) on Secunderabad platform, the Applicant told him that there was no accommodation in S-13 coach under him. In spite of the same, he boarded the coach and made wrong statements that the Applicant had allotted berth nos.41 and 44 in S-13 coach. The Applicant further states that, when he wanted to prepare an Excess Fare Tickets in favour of the 3 passengers, who were found in the passage between S-14 and S-15 coaches, after collecting the requisite amount, Sri V.R.Srinivasa Rao, Vigilance Inspector, did not allow him to do so till the train reached Nanded station, where the cash proceedings were checked and the statements and joint proceedings were prepared, without having any witness to such proceedings. Hence, the cash of Rs.1,050/- tendered by the 3 passengers was wrongly accounted as excess government cash and the same was remitted to the Railways, by forcibly obtaining a statement to implicate the Applicant falsely as if the said passengers had got down at Nizamabad station, and also by obtaining the signatures of other employees, who were called as witnesses, after the proceedings had been drawn.

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

(iv) The Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed the Inquiry Officer (IO) as well as the Presenting Officer (PO), who are working in the Vigilance Department. Thus, the disciplinary inquiry was conducted with administrative bias, influencing the said proceedings to prove the allegations against the applicant. The applicant has also pointed out that the Decoy (PW.1) in the present disciplinary proceedings had also acted as decoy in another check. Thus, he is a stock witness, which is evident from his answer to Question No.21. The Vigilance Inspector (PW.5) also confirmed this fact in his answer to Question No.124, during cross examination. The applicant also pointed out that the evidence of PW-2 (Decoy), PW-4 (a colleague TTI working on the same train), and PW-5 (Vigilance Inspector) showed that the provisions of the Vigilance Manual were not followed. The Inquiry Officer also did not conduct general examination properly, nor deal with the defence of the applicant in the proper perspective.

(v) The Inquiry Officer submitted his report, dt.07.10.2016, and, on receipt of the same, the applicant submitted his representation on 06.11.2016, inter alia, pointing out that, (a) As per Ex. D1, there were no berths vacant in S-13 coach and, therefore, the version of the decoy and the accompanying witness is incorrect; (b) Their version that they were allowed to travel in the coach, ought not to have been accepted by the Inquiry Officer;

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

(c) The remark made on Ex. P.11/EFT “prevented from making EFT”, for 3 passengers found in S-13 coach with Mail/ Express tickets disproved the allegation levelled in Article II. However, the Charges were held as proved on assumptions, though the vigilance check was conducted contrary to the instructions in the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual and the 3rd Respondent, a JAG Officer, vide order, dt. 10.04.2017, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the applicant.

(vi) The specific contention of the applicant is that he was selected by the Divisional Railway Manager for promotion to the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector, as per Memo, dt. 07.06.2013. Therefore, the penalty order, passed by a lower authority, suffers from lack of jurisdiction and incompetency. Even on merits, the said order is arbitrary and illegal.

(vii) The applicant preferred an appeal on 19.04.2017, highlighting the violations of the provisions of the Vigilance Manual and the perverse findings in the I.O.‟s report, which were not considered by the D.A. The Appellate Authority (A.A.), vide order, dt. 01.08.2017, confirmed the penalty of compulsory retirement, imposed by the DA, without going into the evidence on record in the Disciplinary Enquiry. It is contended that the D.A. and the A.A. have merely gone by the version of the I.O., without appreciating the perversity in the findings. Hence, the OA. 3 (i) The Respondents have contested the OA and filed their reply statement. Preliminary objection is raised that the OA is barred by laches and limitation. Further objection has been taken on the ground that the

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

applicant has approached this Tribunal without exhausting the alternative remedy of filing a Revision Petition against the order of the Appellate Authority.

(ii) It is the contention of the Respondents that the enquiry was conducted as per the rules in vogue and the charges were proved in the enquiry. Agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service and the appeal of the applicant was also considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority. In the order of the Appellate Authority, the applicant was advised to prefer a Revision Petition under Rule 25 of the Railway Servant (D & A) Rules, 1968. However, without availing the said remedy, the applicant approached this Tribunal. It is pointed out that even the D.A., in his speaking order, has elaborately discussed the issues raised by the applicant before concluding that the applicant has not brought out any cogent reasons as to why he had not granted receipts to the passengers immediately after collecting the due amount from them, till the train reached Nanded, which shows his ulterior motive to pocket the amounts collected.

(iii) According to the Respondents, the Inquiry Officer is an independent person and decides without any prejudice, on the merits of the case, taking into consideration the statements of witnesses, and all other relevant records, various laws and rules. It is also argued that it is not wrong to utilize witnesses, who had earlier acted as decoy in other checks and, therefore, they cannot be termed as stock witnesses. As per the chart of S- 13, berths were vacant up to Basar Station and the decoy and the decoy

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

witness were on berth nos. 47 and 48 of the coach since the passengers, who had reserved those berths, were sitting on Berth nos. 41 and 44. The applicant failed to advance any evidence in his defence during the inquiry and his averment, that there were no vacant berths in S-13, is not true. The applicant failed to explain as to how excess amount of Rs.1050/- was with him, even prior to collection of Rs.200/- from the decoy and his witness and why he had not issued any receipt immediately after collecting the money.

(iv) In regard to the competency of the Disciplinary Authority, Respondents submit that under Rule No.7 (as given in Schedule-II) of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968, powers are specified in respect of the authorities for imposing penalties on the Railway servant working under their control. As the applicant was working as a Travelling Ticket Inspector, major penalty, including „dismissal from service‟, could be imposed on him by a Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) Officer, empowered to make appointment/ grant promotion to such service/ grade. The Disciplinary Authority is to be determined with reference to the post held by the charged employee at the time when the disciplinary proceedings for imposition of any of the penalties, defined in Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968, are initiated as also the nature of the penalty to be imposed. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the Disciplinary Authority, who imposed the impugned penalty, is not competent, is not correct.

(v) Respondents have also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the representation of the applicant vis-à-vis the findings of the Inquiry Officer, decided to impose the penalty of compulsory

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

retirement. The Appellate Authority also complied with the laid down procedure and upheld the penalty imposed by the DA. The applicant was given all the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to defend his case. Hence, Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

It is found that the disciplinary proceedings have been challenged primarily on three grounds:-

(i) Penalty order has been issued by an incompetent authority. The submission of the applicant, in this regard, made, is as follows:

“The impugned order of compulsory retirement, dt. 10.04.2017, was issued by an incompetent authority, viz., Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, who is a Junior Administrative Grade officer, though the applicant was appointed/ promoted to the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector by Divisional Railway Manager, a higher level functionary. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority suffers from lack of jurisdiction on account of incompetency, thereby this order and the order of the Appellate Authority are null and void in law, illegal, and is in violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution.”

(ii) Appointment of the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer from the Vigilance Organization. The applicant has submitted as follows, in this regard:- “… The disciplinary inquiry was conducted by an officer working in the Vigilance itself, appointing a Presenting Officer who is also working in the Vigilance Department, thus relegating the said disciplinary inquiry to be a mere formality with no intention to examine the truth in the allegations. In the circumstances, when the decoy check was conducted by the officials of Vigilance Department without following the procedure prescribed in the Vigilance Manual, a Presenting Officer working in the Vigilance and an Inquiry Officer who is also a part of the Vigilance Organization as he too reports to the same Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) who is in- charge of the Vigilance Organization – the disciplinary inquiry was

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

conducted with an administrative bias influencing the said proceedings to somehow prove the allegations against the Applicant.”

(iii) Use of stock witnesses/ interested witnesses in violation of the provisions under Para 307.5 sub-para (iv) of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual. It is assailed by the Applicant as follows – “It is submitted that it is clear from the record of evidence by the Inquiry Officer that the accompanying witness to the Decoy (PW.1) had earlier acted as decoy in another check, thus is a stock witness (as per his answer to Question No.21). The Vigilance Inspector (PW.5) also confirmed this fact of both Decoy and the Witness who accompanied him are the persons earlier associated with departmental trap cases conducted by the Vigilance Department as per his answer to Question No.124 during cross examination.”

6(i) The Charge Memorandum, dt.28.05.2014, pertains to decoy check on the intervening night of 19/20.03.2014, wherein two charges were framed against the applicant, which read as under: “STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST Sri K. Ram Mohan Rao, TTI/KCG, now TTI/DMM. Article - I : That the said Sri K. Ram Mohan Rao, TTI/KCG while working as such by train No.17064 between Secunderabad and Nanded on the intervening night of 19/20-3-14 had committed a serious misconduct in that he had demanded and collected Rs. 200/- from the decoy passenger over and above the difference of fare from II M/E to Sleeper class for two adults and did not issue EFT for the same as detailed in the statement of imputations. Thus, Sri K. Ram Mohan Rao, TTI/KCG has violated the instructions contained in Para 522 (a) of IRCM Vol.I, Para 2427

(b) and Para 2430 of IRCM, Volume II and failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant violating Rule No.3 (1) (i) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Article – II: That the said Sri K. Ram Mohan Rao, TTI/KCG while working as such by train No. 17064 between SC-NED on the intervening night of 19/20-3-14 had committed a serious misconduct in that he had produced Rs. 1250/- (including Rs.200/- collected from the decoy passenger) excess in his Railway cash as detailed in the statement of imputations.

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

Thus, Sri K. Ram Mohan Rao, TTI/KCG has violated the instructions contained in Para 522 (a) of IRCM Vol.I, Para 2427

(b) and Para 2430 of IRCM Volume II and failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant violating Rule No.3 (1) (i) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.”

(ii) Learned counsel draws attention to the list of documents and the list of witnesses. A reply statement was filed in response to the Memorandum of charges, highlighting as under: “xxx. Further the amount of Rs. 1050/- tendered by the 03 passengers travelling without ticket was got accounted as excess Government cash and also inserted with Rs.200/- (two one hundred rupee note) from the numbered notes in possession of the decoy Sh.T. Anil Kumar TNC/BDCR. Thereafter, Rs1250/- was remitted as excess Government Cash. This was done ignoring my request to get testified from those passengers from whom the amount of Rs.1050/- was collected as penalty + Fare amount is true or not. The vigilance inspector had not only failed to get the fact authenticated but also had obtained a statement from me as passenger got down at NZB/STN. This was done to implicate me in false case either by hook or crook. Thereafter the vigilance inspector had drawn cash/ joint proceedings in presence of witnesses associated to vigilance branch/team except two of my colleagues were called belatedly to affix their signatures on the entire proceedings documents/statements.”

(iii) It has been further highlighted that a detailed defence brief/written arguments was submitted by the applicant in the inquiry proceedings on 06.09.2016. Inquiry Report, dt. 07.10.2016, was purportedly submitted by the Inquiry Officer with the following observations/findings: “Contention of CE and discussion thereon:

(5) CE in his defense brief has brought out that the decoy and independent witnesses having been already participated in the decoy check are stock witnesses, there was no association of Gazetted officer during the check, the decoy check was in violation of the provisions of Para 306(b), 307.4, 307.5 of IRVM, there was no complaint on him and the PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 were not direct witnesses of the alleged transaction, xxxxx xxxx, PW-5 is having animosity against him and thus he implicated him in the case.

(i) It is factually correct as per the version of CE that the decoy passenger and independent witness Sri T.Anil Kumar and Sri Syed Akbar

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

Ali were earlier participated in the departmental trap which was also accepted by PW-5 in reply to Q.No.127. In terms of Para 307.5(iv) of IRVM, the witnesses selected should not have appeared as witnesses in earlier cases of the department. In the instant case the decoy passenger and independent witness have participated in decoy check earlier and therefore stock witnesses. A stock witness is one who is interested in outcome of the case. But, it is to be noted from answers of PW-1 to Q.No.19 & 20, he required to vigilance branch on the instructions of his SMR/RDM. Similarly, PW-2 in his answers to Q.No.48 to 51 that he acted as a witness in a decoy check, on the instructions of his SMR he after completing his lunch reported to vigilance branch and participated in the check. Though the provisions of IRVM stipulate such condition, it is to be noted that the evidence of these witnesses has no where come on record that they were interested in implicating the CE in a case by hook or crook. The provisions of IRVM were instructions in general and deviation from the instructions in one form or the other does not ipso facto vitiate the check on the ground of employing stock witnesses in the check. However, the PW-1 and PW-2 were from operating department stationed at BDCR and RDM whereas CE stationed at KCG which have in no way have relation since the both witnesses were from adjoining division and therefore, the necessity for them to implicate CE is remotely also not possible as the nature of duties were not identical for them with reference to CE. Even during the oral examination of these witnesses nothing shabby form of evidence has come on record or the disclosure of the facts contrary and their interest in implicating CE falsely in the case during oral examination. Therefore, these witnesses were true witnesses and their deposition cannot be ignored on this sole ground and has to be assessed in normal course. In terms of Para 307.4 of IRVM, the investigating inspector has to immediately arrange one or more officials (Gazetted or Non-Gazetted or a combination of gazetted & non-gazetted) to act as independent witnesses. These provision on perusal can be understood that either gazetted or non- gazetted officials or a combination of gazetted & non-gazetted officials would be suffice and not a mandatory provision for association of gazetted officer in the check. In the instant case, the PW-5 during the check has secured the association of PW-3 and PW-4 who were also performing duty by the Train No. 17064 on the intervening day of 19.03.14/20.03.14. Therefore, non-association of a gazetted officer in the check does not be construed as a breach of the provisions and the action of' PW-5 in associating PW-3 and PW-4 (Non-Gazetted officials) as independent witnesses for the check has satisfied the requirement of the above provisions of the IRVM. In Ex.P-12 it was clearly recorded thereon that an amount of Rs.200/- bearing Rs.100/- denomination in two Nos whose GC numbers were found to be tallied with the GC note numbers recorded in the test check memo were seized from CE and replaced with equal amount against the said amount. The Ex.P-18 was superscripted stating that the seized and recovered amount of Rs.200/- from CE was sealed in a cover which was also signed by CE and other signatories to the check. Therefore, the notes available in Ex.P-18 were the GC notes provided to decoy and accepted by CE as a result of alleged transaction which was recovered from him during the check and this is not the amount which was remitted to Railway revenues vide Ex.P-11 besides other excess money available with CE. This was misconstrued by CE and alleged that there would be no two similar

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

notes with same numbers. It is fact that there would be no two GC notes with same numbers but, in the given context of the case, it is the seized GC notes from CE which were preserved in the cover marked as Ex.P-18 for further action in the case. Thus, the observations of CE in this regard are untenable and unsound. Xxxx xxxx The contention of CE that PW-5 is having animosity against him is not acceptable since the action of the vigilance inspector in laying the trap cannot be considered as abuse of power. The Railway Vigilance department is empowered to conduct decoy checks and in the performance of bonafide duties as Vigilance Inspector as enumerated in Para 108 of IRVM, the vigilance inspector has to conduct the check. If the contention of CE that the VI has laid the trap against him due to animosity then there is no need to examine the investigating officer and no need to the vigilance inspector to investigate into such allegations and affixing the label of animosity/interestingness in success of the investigation it would be quite harsh and unjust to the concerned vigilance inspector who in a given case has invested his best honest efforts in public interest to investigate into the corruption charges. If the evidence of the credible investigating officer is not accepted on the ground that he is interested in the success of investigation it would be absolutely prejudicial and un-judicial approach which not only lead to denial of justice rather fraught with all potential danger of injustice. Accordingly, unless in a given case, a case is made out highlighting the attending extenuating circumstances and shattering the evidence in cross-examination of such investigating officer disentitling him of credibility, the evidence of investigating officer should not be mechanically rejected on the ground that he is interested witness and his evidence should always be not seen with suspicious. Therefore, the averments of the CE are untenable in this regard. X. FINDINGS:

a) The Article-I of Charge: PROVED (As discussed above)

b) The Article-II of Charge: PROVED (As discussed above)”

Admittedly, the Railway Vigilance Department has organized the decoy check on the basis of source information regarding the ticket checking staff that they were indulging in malpractices. The decoy check was not on anyone‟s complaint.

(iv) The said Inquiry Report was submitted to the Sr. DCM, Guntakal Division. Upon receipt of the Inquiry Report, a representation was submitted by the applicant on 06.11.2016. On receipt of the said representation, the impugned Order, dt. 10.04.2017, was issued by the

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Guntakal Division, imposing the penalty as under: “From the above foregoing it is seen that the CE is trying to find fault with the procedure in which the check was carried out. But he has not brought out any cogent reasons as to why he had not granted receipts to the passengers immediately after collecting the due amount from him, even till the train was reaching NED. This clearly indicates the ulterior motive of the CE to pocket the amounts collected. I therefore agree with the findings of the IO that the Articles I & II of charge are proved. As such Sri K.Ram Mohan Rao, TTI/SL/DMM is imposed with a penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement from Service.”

(v) Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, dt.10.04.2017, the applicant preferred Appeal, dt. 19.04.2017, to the ADRM, Guntakal Division, highlighting as under: “xxx. Furthermore, my contentions made in regard to the manner in which the decoy check was carried out and the total violation of the mandatory instructions enshrined in Para 307 of IRVM and the selection of the decoy and the witness of this case. It was established by me in the DAR inquiry proceedings the decoy and his accomplice are stock witnesses and have been utilised for checks in the earlier vigilance cases by the vigilance team are found omitted/ignored by the respected DA. Further, it is on record that there is no complaint given by either the decoy or anyone against me and therefore conducting a "Decoy-Check" was not in conformity with the Instructions prescribed in Para 307.5 (v) of IRVM. Furthermore, the other witnesses i.e. PW-3, 4 and 5 are not direct witnesses to the incident between the decoy and myself that took place in S-13 coach. They are witnesses only to the succeeding events to the incident in S-13 coach. Their depositions made are, inconsequential and are not believable. The deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be treated as Gospel-truth because they are operative plant installed by the vigilance team. Sir, the findings of the IO smacks of bias and the respected DA has ignored this crucial aspect of the case. I pray that cognizance of these factors may please be taken while writing your esteemed judgement. xxx.”

(vi) The Appellate Authority, vide Order, dt. 01.08.2017, confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as below:

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

“As per the chart of S-13 coach, the Berth Nos.41 & 44 were vacant upto BSX. As per Exhibits P-3, P-4 & P-9 and the oral depositions of the decoy and witness passenger in the inquiry, the TTE had asked them to occupy the Berth Nos.41 & 44, but they occupied Berth Nos.47 & 48 since the Berth Nos.41 & 44 were occupied by the passengers of Berth Nos.47 & 48. The appellant has not brought out any plausible explanation as to why he collected only Rs.200/- from the decoy instead of full amount of Rs.700/- and went away discussing with other passengers and also as to why he had not granted receipt immediately on collecting Rs.1050/- from the other three passengers. The TTEs are supposed to collect the due charges and issue receipt immediately, failing which shows the malafide intention of the TTE. It can be reasonably said that the Disciplinary Authority has considered all the aspects submitted by the appellant in his representation to the Inquiry Officer's report and there is no reason to accept that principles of natural justice are breached or denied to the appellant. The appellant has not brought out any cogent evidence to support his contention that there was animosity between him and the CVI. The Inquiry Officer has dealt this aspect in the last para of his report. The Disciplinary Authority considering the pros and cons of the case has imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service against the harsher punishment of removal from service. As such it is felt that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is in commensuration to the gravity of offence committed by the charged employee and the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the penalty of the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" imposed on him by Sr.DCM/GTL the Disciplinary Authority vide order No.GZ/2014030074/C.14-2114/KRR dated, 10.04.2017 is "CONFIRMED"

(vii) Learned counsel for the applicant, highlighting the facts of the case, submits that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority, is bad in law since the applicant was promoted to the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector, vide Office Order, dated 12.06.2013, issued under the signature of the APO/T for the DRM/P/HYB/SC, whereas, the order of Compulsory Retirement was issued by a junior officer, that is, Sr.DCM/GTL. Thus, the said order was not issued by a Competent Authority. In similar situation, this Tribunal had set aside the impugned order issued by an authority junior to the appointing authority, vide order, dt. 14.06.2010, in OA No. 341/2009. He also refers

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

to the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Dev Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 205, in C.A. No.174 of 1976, decided on 20.12.1979, on the point of competence and order, dt. 24.06.2026, in OA No. 68/2023.

(viii) The sum and substance of the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Inquiry Officer was part of the Vigilance Department, who could not have acted fairly as the Inquiry Officer. Further, he has drawn our attention to the Railway Board Instructions No. E(D&A) 2012 RG6-34, dt. 30.09.2015, which reads as under: “2. It was clarified in the above referred instructions that the intention of Rule 2(1)(a) of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 is that the penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service should be imposed on a Railway servant only by the highest of the following authorities viz. the authority which actually appointed the railway servant to the relevant grade or post, or the authority which is empowered to make appointment to that grade or post at the time of imposition of penalty. It was further emphasized that the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service should not be imposed by an authority which has merely issued the offer of appointment or order of promotion with regard to the appointment or promotion ordered by a competent authority higher to that authority.

3. In a PNM meeting with the NFIR, the Federation has stated that in spite of the above mentioned instructions, in some instances, the penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement were imposed on a Railway servant by an authority lower than the authority which had actually ordered the appointment/promotion of the Railway servant. It is therefore reiterated that a lower authority who has merely issued/signed the order regarding appointment/promotion which has been ordered by a higher authority, is not competent to impose the penalty or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service on such Railway servant. Such action is not only violative of the RS(D&A) Rules but also unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. Railways may therefore impress upon all concerned to adhere to the provisions of Railway Board’s letter no. E(D&A) 2002 RG6-36 dated 25.11.2002, as brought out in para 2 above.

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

Learned counsel further submits that since the DRM, who is an SAG Officer, is the Appointing Authority in this case, only he is competent to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the applicant. The order issued by the JAG officer is hit by lack of competency, in view of the fact that DRM had approved the promotion of the applicant.

(ix) Respondents have taken the following plea in this regard, in their Affidavit, filed on 05.08.2026: “11. The Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) is the head of the Divisional Office, under whom there are various departments, including personal department and commercial department, which function to ensure smooth and efficient daily operations. These departments are managed by respective branch officers, who report to Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) of the division. It is not feasible for the DRM to personally supervise and execute the work of all departments, branch officers are Sr. DPO, Sr. DCM, Sr. DOM, in other way they are also named as DRM/P for Sr. DPO, DRM/C for Sr. DCM etc. These officers perform their duties on behalf of the DRM and are authorized to sign documents and take departmental decisions accordingly.

12. In accordance with this administrative structure, many activities in the Railways such as contract-related matters, agreements, and staff- related issues including appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions are processed on behalf of DRMs, whose appointment is ordered by President of India Railway Board Lr. No. ERB-I/2025/02/70 dated 25.11.2025 (Copy enclosed as Annexure-R1). While these matters are carried out under the name and authority of the President, the President does not personally sign or appear; instead, the empowered officers execute these functions on his behalf. Following the same principle, the Assistant Personnel Officer/Traffic/HYB (APO/T/HYB) is also an officer who is sub-ordinate official to Sr. DPO, who performs his duties on behalf of the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM)/HYB. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager (Sr. DCM) is the higher authority over the APO/T/HYB. The organization flow chart of Divisional authorities are enclosed as Annexure-R2 for better understanding of administration operations of division.

13. It is clarified that, vide latest Railway Board letter No. E(D&A) 2018 RG 6-11 Dated:21-08-2025 and RBE No.85/2025 copy enclosed as Annexure-R3 "there is a clarity on determination of appointing authority for purpose of imposition of penalties of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement, Railway may ensure that whenever an initial appointment is made or promotions are effected (from Group D to Group C or within Group C) the appointing authority designation is mentioned in the order.”

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

(x) In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents, specifically in response to para 5.1 of the grounds in the OA, and the hierarchy chart, the applicant‟s counsel refers to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar vs. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer & Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 289, in C.A. No.755 of 1978, decided on 17.07.1979. Para 7 of the said judgment reads as under: “7. Since the appellant was appointed by the Chief Electrical Engineer and has been removed from service by an order passed by respondent 1 who, at any rate, was subordinate in rank to the Chief Electrical Engineer on the date of appellant's appointment, it must be held that respondent 1 had no power to remove the appellant from service. The order of removal is in patent violation of the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution.”

Learned counsel for applicant also refers to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 789, in C.A. Nos. 5102-103 of 2011, decided on 07.07.2011, wherein Para 26 reads as under: “26. It is a settled principle of law that the Schedule of the Rules, 1979 has to be in conformity with, and is required to advance the object of the primary statutory provision. Thus, a schedule cannot in any way wipe out the statutory provisions of the Act in effect and spirit. It is nobody's case, and in fact, nothing has been brought to our notice, that Rules 6, 10, 11 and 24 of the Rules, 1979 have been subjected to any amendment by the competent authority. Once these provisions stand in the statute book, then the respondents cannot escape from complying with them in the appropriate manner and without defeating the object of these Rules.”

(xi) The Railway Board, vide RBE No. No. 85/2025, dt. 21.08.2025, on the subject “Imposition of penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement – Determination of Appointing Authority – reg.”, have clarified as follows:

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

“RBE No. 85/2025, New Delhi, dated 2.1.08.2025 The General Manager (P) All Indian Railways & Production Units etc. (As per Standard List).

Sub: Imposition of penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement Determination of Appointing Authority-reg. NFIR have raised the issue of imposition of penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service on Railway servants by incompetent authorities stating these authorities are relying on the 'Schedule of Powers' (SOPs) prepared with the approval of General Managers for exercising these powers though these SOPs are in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and directives issued by this Ministry on this matter.

2. Clause (1) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India provides as below: "No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed". In due reference to the aforesaid Constitutional provision, Rule 2(1)(a) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 has been framed by the President in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and "appointing authority" in relation to a Railway servant has been defined therein as: "(i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the Service of which the Railway Servant is, for the time being, a member or to the grade of the Service in which the Railway Servant is, for the time being, included, or

(ii) the authority empowered to make appointment to the post which the Railway Servant, for the time being holds, or

(iii) the authority which appointed the Railway Servant to such Service, grade or post, as the case may be, or

(iv) where the Railway Servant having been a permanent member of any other Service or having substantively held any other permanent post, has been in continuous employment under the Ministry of Railways, the authority which appointed him to that Service or to any grade in that Service or to that post; whichever authority is the highest authority.”

3. In order that there is a clarity on determination of appointing authority for purpose of imposition of penalties of dismissal/ removal/ compulsory retirement, Railways may ensure that whenever an initial appointment is made or promotions are effected (from Group D to Group C or within Group C), the appointing designation is mentioned in the order.

4. Please ensure that penalties of dismissal/ removal/ compulsory retirement from service are imposed only by the appointing authority as detailed above.”

(xii) In the Schedule submitted along with the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondents, on 05.08.2026, the Sr. DCM, who has issued the order of penalty is found to be two levels below the DRM. Even the

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

ADRM, who is the Appellate Authority, comes in between the DRM and the Sr. DCM. Therefore, there is no doubt that the punishment order has been issued by an officer, who is lower in rank than the appointing authority and the same is also in violation of the Railway Board directives as well as the very constitutional safeguard provided under Article 311(1) of the Constitution.

(xiii) Learned counsel for applicant submits that the trap laid down in the instant case is in gross violation of the appropriate safeguards and the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, more specifically Paras 704 & 705 thereof, which read as under: "704. Traps (i)-(iv) xxx

(v) When laying a trap, the following important points have to be kept in view:

(a) Two or more independent witnesses must hear the conversation, which should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification to meet the defense that the money was actually received as a loan or something else, if put up by the accused.

(b) The transaction should be within the sight and hearing of two independent witnesses.

(c) There should be an opportunity to catch the culprit red-handed immediately after passing of the illegal gratification so that the accused may not be able to dispose it of.

(d) The witnesses selected should be responsible witnesses who have not appeared as witnesses in earlier cases of the Department or the police and are men of status, considering the status of the accused. It is safer to take witnesses who are government employees and of other departments.

(e) After satisfying the above conditions, the investigating officer should take the decoy to the SP/SPE and pass on the information to him for necessary action. If the office of the SP, SPE, is not nearby and immediate action is required for laying the trap, the help of the local police may be obtained. It may be noted that the trap can be laid only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Local Police. After the SPE or local police official have been entrusted with the work, all arrangements for laying the trap and execution of the same should be done by them. All necessary help required by them should be rendered.

(vi) -(vii) xxx.

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

705. Departmental traps.-For departmental traps, the following instructions in addition to those contained under Para 704 are to be followed:

(a) The investigating officer/Inspector should arrange two gazetted officers from Railways to act as independent witnesses as far as possible. However, in certain exceptional cases where two gazetted officers are not available immediately, the services of non-gazetted staff can be utilized. All employees, particularly, gazetted officers, should assist and witness a trap whenever they are approached by any officer or branch. The Head of Branch should detail a suitable person or persons to be present at the scene of trap. Refusal to assist or witness a trap without a just cause/without sufficient reason may be regarded as a breach of duty, making him liable to disciplinary action.

(b) The decoy will present the money which he will give to the defaulting officers/employees as bribe money on demand. A memo should be prepared by the investigating officer/Inspector in the presence of the independent witnesses and the decoy indicating the numbers of the GC notes for legal and illegal transactions. The memo, thus prepared should bear the signature of decoy, independent witnesses and the investigating officer/Inspector. Another memo, for returning the GD notes to the decoy will be prepared for making over the GC notes to the delinquent employee on demand. This memo should also contain signatures of decoy, witnesses and investigating officer/Inspector. The independent witnesses will take up position at such a place where from they can see the transaction and also hear the conversation between the decoy and delinquent, with a view to satisfy themselves that the money was demanded, given and accepted as bribe a fact to which they will be deposing in the departmental proceeding at a later date. After the money has been passed on, the investigating officer/Inspector should disclose the identity and demand, in the presence of the witnesses, to produce all money including private, and bribe money. Then the total money produced will be verified from relevant records and memo for seizure of the money and verification particulars will be prepared. The recovered notes will be kept in an envelope sealed in the presence of the witnesses, decoy and the accused as also his immediate superior who should be called as a witness in case the accused refuses to sign the recovery memo, and sealing of the notes in the envelope.” (emphasis supplied) In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 484, in Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2008, decided on 04.03.2008.

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

(xiv) Further, the learned counsel argued that during the “general examination”, the Inquiry Officer could not have put questions in violation of Rule 9(21) of the Indian Railway (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which corresponds to Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as reproduced below: “9(21) The inquiring authority may, after the Railway servant closes his case, and shall, if the Railway servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Railway servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.”

With reference to the general examination, as dealt with in the case of Moni Shankar (supra), learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to page 65 of the paper book, where the general examination is shown to have been taken up, as under: “General Examination: Q.159: The documentary evidence in general and oral evidence of PWs in particular is likely to go against you. CE may please offer his comments on the same? Ans:

I state no documentary evidence listed in Annexure-III of the charge memorandum is going against me or does it points out to any misconduct upon my part. Further, the oral evidences of PWs examined in the DAR inquiry proceedings are not going against me as none of the prosecution witnesses have conclusively established or has led to show any documentary proof to sustain the allegations upon me. The case in question has been foisted upon me due to animosity of the prosecution witness No.5 The details of which will be brought out extensively in my defence brief for which I will be submitting on receipt of the PO brief within 30 days.

The general examination is not as per the procedure laid down.

(xv) Thus, the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority was not based on evidence, but was made with a pre- determined mind.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that due process of law has been followed in the present case and that the principles of natural

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

justice have not been violated. Learned counsel further reiterates that the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings in limited. In this regard, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors., 1995 SCC

(6) 749, decided on 01.11.1995.

8. Similar case came up before this Tribunal in OA No. 68/2023 and, vide order, dt. 24.06.2026, wherein, one of us (VSKK, HMA, was part of the Bench). The decision went in favour of the applicant because of the procedural violations. It was held therein that: “19. We must make it clear that it is a fundamental principle of law that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. Even though the role of Courts and Tribunal in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited, they can certainly intervene if the basic tenets of fairness and natural justice are violated. In P.K. Gosh, I.A.S. and Anr. v. J.G. Rajput, reported in 1995 6 SCC 744, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the point of bias, observed thus: "A basic postulate of the rule of law is that 'justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done'. If there be a bias which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his matter should not be heard by a particular Judge and there is no compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is appropriate that the learned Judge should refuse himself from the Bench hearing that matter. This step is required to be taken by the learned Judge not because he is likely to be influenced in any manner in doing justice in the cause, but because his hearing the matter is likely to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that the mind of the learned Judge - may be subconsciously - has been influenced by some extraneous factor in making the decision, particularly if it happens to be in favour of the opposite party. Credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary. This is necessary not only for doing justice but also for ensuring that justice is seen to be done."

20. The entire exercise of the Respondent department in this disciplinary enquiry comes under a cloud as an official in the vigilance set up was appointed as I.O. to enquire into the charges which are based on the investigation conducted by that very

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

department. The enquiry conducted by the I.O., therefore, cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

21. As a result, the impugned order, dt.17.07.2021, of the D.A., as well as the consequent orders, dt.27.06.2022 & 28.04.2023 of the A.A. and the R.A., respectively, upholding the punishment, are quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the Respondents are at liberty to proceed further in the matter on the basis of the charge memo, dt.28.08.2020, duly following the procedure, as per the applicable rules and the law laid down.

22. The OA is allowed in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.”

9. We have already found that the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager could not have compulsorily retired the applicant, being lower in rank, than the DRM, under whose orders, the applicant had been promoted as TTI, vide Ann. A-10. Appointing the IO from the Vigilance Department and utilizing stock decoys/ witnesses also strike at the root of fair play and are in gross violation of the departmental Rules supra. Thus, we are not convinced by the specious arguments of the Respondents to cover up the procedural lapses in setting up of the decoy check as well as conduct of the departmental enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings in question fail on all the three grounds, as seen above, and are rendered void.

10. The OA is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders, dt.10.04.2017, of the Disciplinary Authority, and, dt. 01.08.2017, of the Appellate Authority, are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to extend all the consequential benefits to the applicant, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

11. Pending MA (s), if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)

(MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

/evr/

VISWESWARA RAO ESURU 2026.11.06 14:41:55+05'30' VISWESWARA RAO ESURU