Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5033 of 2003
PETITIONER:
The Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ors
RESPONDENT:
G. Ratnam & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2007
BENCH:
H.K. Sema & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5033 OF 2003
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5029 OF 2003
The Divisional Commercial Manager, South
Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ors. ..... Appellants
Versus
M. Subramanyam Devers ..... Respondent
A N D
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5031 OF 2003
Union of India & Ors. ..... Appellants
Versus
M. Anjaneyulu ..... Respondent
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. These appeals by special leave filed by the Chief
Commercial Manager, South Central Railway and Others \026
appellants herein, are directed against the common judgment
and order dated 4th day of September, 2002 passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 1489/2002, 26165
and 25111/2001. By the impugned order, the High Court
dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants against the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short "the
Tribunal"], Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. The Tribunal
allowed the original applications of the respondents herein and
quashed the orders of penalties imposed upon the respondents
by the authority in departmental proceedings and further
directed to reinstate the respondents in service.
2. These appeals are similar in nature and they involve
identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are
being decided by this common judgment.
3. The facts, which are not in controversy of the case, are
set out below:-
C. A. No. 5031 of 2002:
4. M. Anjaneyulu, the respondent in C.A. No. 5031/2003, at
the relevant time, was working as Head Train Ticket Examiner
(HTTE) on Train No. 8561. On 26.11.1998, departmental trap
was laid by the Vigilance Officer of the Railway by arranging a
decoy passenger on Train No.8561 going from Vijayawada to
Kazipet stations. In the process of the raid, the respondent
was found having demanded more money against the EFT
amount. The report of the investigating officer was submitted
to the Railway Authority, who issued charge sheet against the
delinquent. The articles of charges are as under:-
(i) That the said Shri M. Anjaneyulu has demanded
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
and collected Rs. 200/- against the EFT amount of Rs.
128/- towards the conversion and reservation charges for
providing SL class accommodation on two II Express
Ticket Nos. 29059 and 39060. Thus, he failed to
maintained absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted
in a manner of unbecoming of a Railway servant and
violated Rule No. 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of Rule No. 26 of Railway
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
(ii) While working as such in Train No. 8561 Express of
26.11.1988, he produced his railway cash as Rs. 803/-
against his EFT earning of Rs. 767/- and thus he
produced Rs. 36/- excess as an unaccounted cash.
Thus, he violated Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Rule No. 26 of
Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
5. The Enquiry Officer conducted departmental Inquiry
against the respondent-delinquent on the above said charges
as per the provisions of the Railway Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1968 and held that both the charges were
proved against the delinquent. He was found defaulting
himself in discharge of the official duties. The Disciplinary
Authority, having agreed with the Inquiry Report, imposed
upon the respondent-delinquent penalty of reversion by two
grades from HTTE to Ticket Examiner (TE). The Revisional
Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
respondent-delinquent vide order dated 25.02.2000, enhanced
the penalty to removal from service of the respondent. Being
aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief
Commercial Manager, South Central Railway. The Appellate
Authority, on consideration of the material on record,
confirmed the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent
by the Revisional Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent
filed O.A. No. 1339/2000 before the Tribunal below.
C. A. No. 5029 of 2007:
6. M. Subramanyam Devers, respondent herein, was
working as Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) in the year 1999.
On 07.06.1999, when the respondent-delinquent was on duty
on Train No. 752, Summer Special Express going from
Secunderabad to Wadi, the Vigilance Officer laid departmental
trap by deploying a decoy passenger. In the process of raid,
the respondent was found defaulting himself in discharge of
his official duties. As a result thereof, a charge sheet dated
24.8.1999 was issued against the respondent, which reads as
under:-
(i) That the said Sri M. Subramanyam Devers has
demanded and collected Rs. 100/- against the EFT
amount of Rs. 89/- and again collected Rs. 100/- against
the EFT amount of Rs. 89/- towards the conversion and
reservation charges for providing SL class
accommodation on two II Express Ticket Nos. 34623 and
34622. Thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity,
devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of
a Railway servant and violated Rule No. 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of
Rule No. 26 of Railway Services [Conduct] Rules, 1966.
(ii) While working as such in Train No. 752, Summer
Special on 7.6.1999 ex. SC to WD has produced his
railway cash as Rs. 200/- against the EFT accountal of
Rs. 178/- and got remitted to the Railway vide EFT No.
492236 of 7.6.99 is liable as per para 2429 of IRCM Vol.
II. Thus, Sri Subramanyam Devers, TTE/SC failed to
maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Railway servant and thus, violated Rule
No. 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,
1966.
7. In a departmental inquiry conducted under the Railway
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, the Inquiry
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
officer found the above-said charges proved against the
respondent. The Disciplinary Authority had accepted the
Inquiry Report and imposed punishment of removal from
service upon the respondent with immediate effect. The
Appellate Authority, on consideration of the appeal filed by the
respondent vide order dated 24.02.2000, confirmed the order
of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The
respondent preferred a revision before the Revisional
Authority, who on 14.08.2000 dismissed the said revision
petition. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No.
1349/2000 before the Tribunal.
C. A. No. 5033 of 2003:
8. In the year 1998, G. Ratnam, respondent herein, was
working as HTTE. In a decoy departmental trap laid by the
Vigilance Officer on 13/14.01.1998, the respondent was found
lacking in discharge of his official duties. A charge memo
dated 27.6.1998 containing the following two heads of charges
was issued to the respondent.
(i) That the said Sri. G. Ratnam, HTTE/SL/BZA while
working as such by 7225 Express from BZA\026GTL on
13/14.01.1998 has failed to maintain absolute integrity,
devotion to duty and has committed the following
irregularity in that. He has collected Rs.20/- excess from
Sri N. Neelambaram for providing sleeper class reserved
accommodation ex. BZA to BAY as detailed in the
statement of imputations and thus collected
unauthorized charges hence liable vide para 2430(a) of
IRCM Volume \026II.
(ii) Thus Sri G. Ratnam, HTTE/SL/BZA has violated
Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,
1966. While working as such by 7225 Express from
BZA-GTL on 13/14.01.1998 has failed to maintain
absolute integrity, show devotion to duty and has
committed the serious irregularity; in that he has
produced Rs. 20/- excess in the Railway cash which was
remitted to Railways vide EFT No. 305379 of 13.1.1998
and thus liable vide para 2429(e) of IRCM Volume II.
Thus Sri G. Ratnam, HTTE/SL/BZA has violated Rule
3(1)(i) & (ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
9. The Railway Authority conducted departmental inquiry
against the respondent in accordance with the provisions of
the Railway Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and
during the said inquiry, the above-said charges were proved
against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, having
gone through the inquiry report vide order dated 26.05.1999,
imposed a penalty of reduction to lower grade post of TTE
upon the respondent with effect from 10.6.1999 for a period of
one year with loss of seniority. It appears that no appeal has
been preferred by the respondent against the order of the
Disciplinary Authority. However, the Senior Divisional
Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division
\026 appellant No. 3 herein under Rule 25 of the Railway Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 took suo motu revision
and directed the respondent to show-cause why the penalty be
not enhanced to removal from service. The respondent
submitted his representation on 29.11.2001. On 05.01.2000,
appellant No. 3 considered the representation of the
respondent, modified and substituted the penalty to that of
compulsory retirement of the respondent from service with
effect from 20.01.2000. Being aggrieved, the respondent
preferred O.A. No. 194/2000 before the Tribunal which came
to be disposed of on 14.2.2000 with a direction to the
respondent to prefer an appeal before the Chief Commercial
Manager - Appellate Authority. The respondent accordingly
filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
of compulsory retirement imposed by the Revising Authority
upon the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed
another O.A. No. 1773/2000 before the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal below, by a common order, allowed the
applications of the respondents on a technical ground holding
that the departmental traps were not laid by the Vigilance
Officers of the Railways in accordance with the provisions of
the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996 and as a result of
the defective investigations, orders of imposition of penalty
upon the respondents by the Disciplinary Authority and the
consequential orders of the Revisional Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority are quashed.
11. The appellants, being aggrieved, filed three separate writ
petitions in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad challenging the validity and correctness of the
order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court
agreed with the order of the Tribunal and came to the
conclusion that the investigating agency had conducted the
departmental traps against the respondents in violation of the
mandatory provisions as contained in paragraphs 704 and
705 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996. Non-
compliance of the said provisions has vitiated the disciplinary
proceedings and as a result thereof, the order of the
authorities imposing penalty upon the respondents are held to
be invalid and illegal.
12. Now, the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central
Railway, the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central
Railway, Vijayawada Division, the Senior Divisional Personnel
Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division and the
Senior Commercial Manager, South Central Railway,
Vijayawada, are the appellants who have filed these appeals
against the impugned judgment and order of the Division
Bench of the High Court.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and examined the entire material on record. Mr. C.S.
Rajan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants, contended that the High Court erred in holding
paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual
mandatory in nature. According to the learned counsel, the
instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the
Vigilance Manual are in the nature of departmental
instructions with no statutory force and these are in the
nature of guidance to the Vigilance Officers for conducting
investigation in departmental trap cases involving Railway
employees and a non-compliance if any of such instructions,
would not amount to vitiation of the entire departmental
proceedings initiated against the respondents for their
misconduct in terms of the Service Rules, therefore the
judgment of the High Court upholding the order of the
Tribunal is untenable and unsustainable.
14. Shri A. Subba Rao, the learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently
contended that the order of the Tribunal as well as the final
judgment of the High Court cannot be found faulted or
perverse on any ground as the departmental proceedings
initiated against the respondents on the basis of the defective
investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in violation
of the mandatory provisions as provided in paragraphs 704
and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, had resulted prejudice
to the respondents to defend themselves in the departmental
proceedings. He submitted that the procedure as prescribed
under the Vigilance Manual is backed by statutory force and
non-adherence of the mandatory provisions by the
Investigating Officer during the investigation of trap cases or
departmental trap cases would amount to vitiation of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
departmental proceedings based upon the defective reports of
the investigating officer submitted to the Railway Authority
against the respondents for their misconduct in discharge of
their duties. Therefore, this Court will be slow to interfere in
the judgment of the High Court.
15. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate at this
stage to refer to the relevant provisions of paragraphs 704 and
705 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996, which
read as under:-
"704. Traps
(i) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005
\005\005\005\005\005.
(ii) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005
\005\005\005\005\005
(iii) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005
\005\005\005\005\005
(iv) \005..\005\005\005.\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005
\005\005\005\005\005
(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 defence 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 S.P., S.P.E., 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 S.P.E. 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) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005
\005\005\005\005..
(vii) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005
\005\005\005\005..
Para 705 Departmental Traps
For Departmental traps, the following instructions
in addition to those contained under paras 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
exceptional cases where two gazetted officers are not
available immediately, the services of non-gazetted staff
can be utilised.
All railway employees, particularly, gazetted officers,
should assist and witness a trap whenever they are
approached by any officer or Vigilance branch. The Head
of Vigilance Branch 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 G.C. 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 G.D. notes to the decoy will be prepared for
making over the G.C. 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 \026 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, Railway 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 s a witness
in case the accused refuses to sign the recovery memo,
and sealing of the notes in the envelope.
(c) XXX
(d) XXX
(e) XXX"
16. The Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court,
as noticed hereinabove, both, have held that the Instructions
contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual are
mandatory in nature and their violation by the Investigating
Agency in the process of laying traps against the respondents,
have caused prejudice to the respondents to defend their
cause in the departmental proceedings which were initiated
against the respondents by the Authority on the basis of the
defective and unfounded investigation reports prepared by the
investigation officers.
17. We may, at this stage, point out that the Vigilance
Manual which was first published in 1970 was revised in 1996
under which the departmental traps were laid against the
respondents. The revised Vigilance Manual of 1996 has now
been re-revised by the Indian Railways in the year 2006.
Paragraph 306 in Chapter III of the Indian Railways Vigilance
Manual, 2006 deals with trap cases by the C.B.I.
Departmental trap cases, procedure and guidelines are
prescribed in paragraph 307 (corresponding to paragraph 705
of the 1996 Manual). However, the present cases are covered
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
and dealt with by the procedure and guidelines as contained
in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the 1996 Manual.
18. We shall now examine whether on the facts and the
material available on record, non-adherence of the
instructions as laid down in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the
Manual would invalidate the departmental proceedings
initiated against the respondents and rendering the
consequential orders of penalty imposed upon the respondents
by the authorities, as held by the High Court in the impugned
order. It is not in dispute that the departmental traps were
conducted by the investigating officers when the respondents
were on official duty undertaking journey on trains going from
one destination to another destination. The Tribunal in its
order noticed that the decoy passengers deployed by the
investigation officers were RPF Constables in whose presence
the respondents allegedly collected excess amount for
arranging sleeper class reservation accommodation etc. to the
passengers. The transaction between the decoy passengers
and the respondents was reported to have been witnessed by
the RPF Constables. In the facts and circumstances of the
matters, the Tribunal held that the investigations were
conducted by the investigating officers in violation of the
mandatory Instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705
of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, on the basis of which inquiries
were held by the Enquiry Officer which finally resulted in the
imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the Railway
Authority. The High Court in its impugned judgment has
come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Reports in the absence
of joining any independent witnesses in the departmental
traps, are found inadequate and where the Instructions
relating to such departmental trap cases are not fully adhered
to, the punishment imposed upon the basis of such defective
traps are not sustainable under law. The High Court has
observed that in the present cases the service of some RPF
Constables and Railway staff attached to the Vigilance Wing
were utilised as decoy passengers and they were also
associated as witnesses in the traps. The RPF Constables, in
no terms, can be said to be independent witnesses and non-
association of independent witnesses by the investigating
officers in the investigation of the departmental trap cases has
caused prejudice to the rights of the respondents in their
defence before the Enquiry Officers.
19. We are not inclined to agree that the non-adherence of
the mandatory Instructions and Guidelines contained in
paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual has vitiated
the departmental proceedings initiated against the
respondents by the Railway Authority. In our view, such
finding and reasoning are wholly unjustified and cannot be
sustained.
20. We have carefully gone through the contents of various
chapters of the Vigilance Manual. Chapters II, III, VIII, IX and
Chapter XIII deal with Railway Vigilance organization and its
role, Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of
Investigation, Investigation of Complaints by Railway
Vigilance, processing of vigilance cases in Railway Board,
suspension and relevant aspects of Railway Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 as relevant to vigilance
work etc. Paragraphs 704 and 705, as noticed earlier, cover
the procedures and guidelines to be followed by the
investigating officers, who are entrusted with the task of
investigation of trap cases and departmental trap cases
against the railway officials. Broadly speaking, the
administrative rules, regulations and instructions, which have
no statutory force, do not give rise to any legal right in favour
of the aggrieved party and cannot be enforced in a court of law
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
against the administration. The executive orders appropriately
so-called do not confer any legally enforceable rights on any
persons and impose no legal obligation on the subordinate
authorities for whose guidance they are issued. Such an order
would confer no legal and enforceable rights on the delinquent
even if any of the directions is ignored, no right would lie.
Their breach may expose the subordinate authorities to
disciplinary or other appropriate action, but they cannot be
said to be in the nature of statutory rules having the force of
law, subject to the jurisdiction of certiorari.
21. It is well-settled that the Central Government or the State
Government can give administrative instructions to its
servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not
make such Instructions Statutory Rules which are justiciable
in certain circumstances. In order that such executive
instructions have the force of Statutory Rules, it must be
shown that they have been issued either under the authority
conferred on the Central Government or the State Government
by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution
providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any
breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any
right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against
Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
22. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [1996] 3 SCC
364, this Court held that in a case of a procedural provision
which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of
violation has to be examined from the stand point of
substantial compliance. The order passed in violation of such
a provision can be set aside only where such violation has
occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. The Court
or the Tribunal should inquire whether:-
(a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature; or
(b) whether it is procedural in character?
23. It is by now well-settled that the purposes of departmental
inquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct
aspects. 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 that the offender shall make
satisfaction to the public. Crime is an act of commission in
violation of law or of omission of public duty. The
departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service
and efficiency of public service. [see Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation v. Sarvesh Berry \026 (2005) 10 SCC 471]. In the
cases on hand, no proceedings for commission of penal
offences were proposed to be lodged against the respondents
by the investigating officers. The Railway authority appointed
enquiry officer to hold inquiry against the respondents for
their misconducts in discharge of their official duty on the
relevant day when vigilance officers laid departmental traps
when the respondents were traveling on the above-said trains
going from one destination to another destination. The
enquiry officer held the inquiry strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968 in the presence of the respondents and finally
found them guilty of misconduct on the basis of the evidence
led before the enquiry officers. The disciplinary authority, on
consideration of the inquiry reports and other material on
record, imposed punishments upon the respondents in terms
of the Service Rules. The respondents filed their revision
petitions and the appeals before the Revisional Authorities and
the Appellate Authority under the relevant service rules, which
were duly considered by the authorities.
24. On consideration of the foregoing facts and in the teeth of
the legal aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the
Vigilance Manual, 1996 are procedural in character and not of
a substantive nature. The violation thereof, if any, by the
investigating officer in conducting departmental trap cases
would not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings
initiated against the respondents on the basis of the
complaints submitted by the investigating officers to the
railway authorities. The instructions as contemplated under
paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual have been issued not
for the information of the accused in the criminal proceedings
or the delinquent in the departmental proceedings, but for the
information and guidance of the investigating officers.
25. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court, upholding the orders of the Tribunal,
is not legal and justified. It is set aside accordingly.
26. These appeals are allowed. Consequently, the Writ
Petition Nos. 1489/02, 26165/2001 and 25111/01 filed before
the High Court shall stand allowed. Parties to bear their own
costs.
27. IA NO. 2 filed in CA No. 5033/2003.
We have heard Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate
appearing on behalf of All India Com. Railway Employees
Sangharsh Samiti and others \026 intervenors. Mr. Gupta has
sought to support the order of the High Court upholding the
order of the Tribunal. The appellants submitted before us
written relevant events and legal submissions in these
proceedings. It is submitted by the intervenors that in the
year 2003 they had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 518/2003 under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court
mainly claiming to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ
or writs, order or orders, direction or directions upon the
Government of India and Railway Authorities to obey/follow
the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 704 and 705 of All
India Vigilance Manual 1976 and to implement the judgment
dated 4.09.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature, A.P.
in Writ Petition No. 1489/2002 (Union of India & Ors. v. M.
Anjaneyulu & Anr.) [present C.A. No. 5031/2003]. The said
writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on
28.11.2003 on which date the following orders came to be
passed:-
"As prayed, permission to withdraw the petition
is granted with liberty to move any appropriate
application as may be advised for intervention
in SLP(C) No\005\005.CC No.5912/2003."
During the hearing of the intervention application which
was allowed by this Court on 24.02.2004, Mr. Raj Kumar
Gupta has brought to our notice that some disputes raised by
the intervenors in regard to the same subject matter are
pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for adjudication. In
view of the pendency of the matters before the Tribunal and
the High Court, we do not wish to embark upon the merits of
the claims made by the intervenors in their case pending
before the Tribunal and the High Court, which shall be
decided on their own merits. The intervention application is
accordingly rejected without expressing any opinion on its
merits.