Union Of India & Ors. vs Chakresh Kumar

$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010501922026
+ W.P.(C) 15398/2026, CAV 494/2026, CM APPLs. 72212/2026,
72213/2026 & 72214/2026

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC

versus

CHAKRESH KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Ms.
Sonika and Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 15.10.2026

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 4 August 2026, passed
1
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 4229/2024.

2. The respondent, an employee of the Ministry of Railway, was
dismissed from service without holding an inquiry, exercising powers
under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968, which, admittedly, is pari materia with Article 311(2)(b)
of the Constitution of India.

1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15398/2026 Page 1 of 5

3. The Disciplinary Authority was, therefore, required to clearly
state the reasons as to why he deemed it inexpedient or impracticable
to hold a departmental inquiry.

4. The Tribunal has reproduced the order dated 1 April 2024,
whereby the respondent was dismissed from service, and we deem it
appropriate to do likewise:

“In exercise of powers conferred upon me under rule-14 (II) of
Railway Servant (D & A) Rules, 1968, I have gone through the
entire case and found as under:-

It is a matter of great concern that Shri Saurabh Kumar a public
man posted a video on Twitter on 30.03.2022 to Railway Ministry
and other higher authorities in Railway Board and Headquarter
office as well. The fact finding enquiry was conducted which also
reveals that you while on duty as Guard on 07.03.2022, 09.03.2022
& 11.03.2022 in which you worked in SLR No. NF 04705 which is
being depicted in the video in an objectionable and vulgar
situation. It has also been verified that this SLR was running in the
rear of Train No. 04334 on the above dates.

During fact finding enquiry, some Railway Staff Le. Shri
Brijmohan Singh, CTNC/MB, Shri Mahendra Kumar, SS/MB &
Shri Tejpal Giri, Unfit Guard/MB also recognised you in video as
well as photo that the person in the video is of Shri Chakresh
Kumar, Guard Goods/MB with an unknown girl in Red T-shirt and
Blue Jeans, who is not a railway person.

In view of the video, photos posted on Twitter to the Railway
Authorities and the final outcome of the fact finding enquiry report
proved it that you while on duty in brake-van no. NF 04705
running in the rear of Train No. 04334 have tarnished the image of
Railway Administration.

From the above incidents, it has been established that while on
duty in SLR No. NF 04705 in Train No. 04334, you were noticed
in an objectionable condition with a girl who has no concerned
with Railways, which could be serious and created unsafe
condition in train operations and tried to endanger the safety to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15398/2026 Page 2 of 5

bonafide Railway Passengers by working train in a locked moving
SLR. In this way all the passing Railway Stations enroute have cut
its contact with the working Guard. Such type of unsafe trains
operations could have turned into possible accident/derailments too
and have costed to the Railway Administration heavily. Railway
Safety as well as the safety of the travelling public cannot be
compromised at any stage. Therefore, I also hold you guilty of the
charges and responsible for violating Rule-3-Genl. (i), (ii), (iii),
(v), (vi), (ix) & (xv) as well as 3 (A) (i) of Railway Service
Conduct Rule - 1966 which badly effected the image of Railway
Administration in the general public.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit to give you an
opportunity to defend In the above case and do not want to hold
any enquiry in this case. Moreover, the charges leveled against you
are of serious nature and giving you any further opportunity to
continue your service, shall invite serious threat to safety in train
operations in future too.

As such, I exercise the powers conferred upon me under rule 14 (ii)
of Railway Servant (D & A) Rules - 1958 and in view of the
seriousness of the charges levelled against you while working in
train operation duty. I, therefore, hold you guilty of the charges as
mentioned above and have decided to impose upon you a penalty
of Removal from Service. You are, therefore, removed from
railway service (from the post of Guard Goods) with Immediate
effect.

2. Under Rule -18 of Railway Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1968 an appeal against these orders lies to
ADRM/MB provided-

i. The appeal submitted within 45 days from the date
you receive the orders; and

ii. The appeal does not contain Improper or
disrespectful language.

3. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.”
(Emphasis supplied)

5. This is a truly strange case in which the Disciplinary Authority
does not even give perfunctory reasons for dispensing with the
disciplinary inquiry. All he states is the following:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15398/2026 Page 3 of 5

“Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit to give you an
opportunity to defend In the above case and do not want to hold
any enquiry in this case.”


6. It would be a merry state of affairs if disciplinary inquiries can
be dispensed with at the sweet will of the Disciplinary Authority. The
afore-extracted words from the order of the dismissal indicate that the
Disciplinary Authority was of the view that he was the sole repository
of the discretion as to whether the inquiry was to be dispensed with or
not and that he was not required to give any reasons for doing so. All
he states is that he did not want to hold a disciplinary inquiry.

7. There is no observation, by the Disciplinary Authority, that the
holding of a disciplinary inquiry would be inexpedient or
impracticable, or that the respondent would be likely to influence or
intimidate witnesses if an inquiry were held, or that he was not
traceable. No sufficient cause for dispensing with a disciplinary
inquiry was, therefore, forthcoming from the order of punishment.

8. That a disciplinary inquiry cannot be mechanically dispensed
with, and that cogent reasons are required to be recorded before doing
so, stands settled in a plethora of authorities, including Union of India
2
v. Tulsiram Patel , Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay
3 4
Kumar , Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab , Union of India v. Harjeet
5 6
Singh Sandhu , Satyavir Singh v. Union of India and Sahadeo

2
(1985) 3 SCC 398
3
2003 (4) SCC 579
4
1996 (10) SCC 659
5
2001 (5) SCC 593
6
(1985) 4 SCC 252
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15398/2026 Page 4 of 5

7
Singh v. Union of India .

9. The Tribunal has, therefore, correctly held that the impugned
order dismissing the respondent from service could not sustain as it
was passed without any disciplinary inquiry and without providing
any reasons as to why the inquiry was dispensed with. The Tribunal
has, therefore, reinstated the respondent in service and has reserved
liberty with the petitioners to proceed in accordance with law by way
of a proper disciplinary inquiry.

10. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the
Tribunal.

11. Before parting ways with this lis , we are constrained to observe
that, instead of passing such orders, if the Disciplinary Authorities in
the department could only take the trouble of issuing a charge sheet to
officers and employees who are suspected to have committed
actionable misconduct – save and except where there are legally
sustainable reasons for not doing so – such litigation could be avoided.

12. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine .



C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 15, 2026 /aky

7
(2003) 9 SCC 75
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15398/2026 Page 5 of 5