DEVINDER PAL SINGH vs M/o Railways

​ ​ ​ ​ 1 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.060/51/2018
Chandigarh, Order Reserved: 20.08.2026
Pronounced: 15.10.2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Devinder Pal Singh son of Sh. S. Arora, S.S.E/P-Way/FZR now r/o House
No.51, Friends Colony, Ferozepur City, District Ferozepur (Aged about 70
years) (Group-C)
...Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi.
2. Senior Divisional Engineer-1, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway
Manager, Ferozepur Cantt., District Ferozepur.
3. Union Public Service Commission through its Under Secretary, UPSC
Building, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069.
…Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Komal Preet Chauhan for R-1 & 2, ​
​ ​ ​ Mr. B.B. Sharma for R-3
O R D E R
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. ​ The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is directed against impugned
punishment order dated 23.10.2013 (Annexure A-12) passed by
respondent No. 1 in pursuance of chargesheet dated 09.04.2009 issued
by respondent No. 2. The applicant has prayed for reliefs as under:
“(i) That the applicant prays that the impugned order dated 23.10.2013,
Annexure A-12, issued by the respondent No.1 thereby ordering for
withholding of 20% of the monthly pension for a period of 3 years.
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
(ii) Any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
be issued.”

​ ​ ​ ​ 2 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

2. ​ Facts of the case in brief are as follows. The applicant was
appointed as Assistant Permanent Inspector (A.P.W.I.) in the Northern
Railway in October 1971 and served in the Ferozepur Division for
approximately 37 years. He was compulsorily retired from service with
effect from 07.04.2008 vide order dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure A-1). The
applicant challenges the penalty order dated 23.10.2013 (Annexure
A-12), whereby 20% of his monthly pension was withheld for three years
pursuant to disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged irregularities in
indents for the purchase of railway material.
3. ​ The applicant contends that the charge-sheet dated 09.04.2008
(Annexure A-2) was issued on the eve of his retirement, by an
incompetent authority, and was based on incorrect facts and manipulated
dates. The applicant submits that the relevant indents were prepared on
27.12.2006, whereas the charge-sheet referred to indents dated
27.07.2006, except for three indents bearing Nos. 334, 336 and 339. The
applicant maintains that the indents represented genuine demands for
material and that several other Inspectors, Controlling Officers and
Approving Officers were involved in the same transactions, yet he alone
was proceeded against in the manner complained of. The applicant
further alleges that respondent No. 2, who issued the charge-sheet, had
himself approved the indents in question and was therefore disqualified
from acting as the disciplinary authority. The applicant also relies on the
closure report filed by the CBI in the criminal case, which, according to
him, was accepted by the competent court.
4. ​ The applicant had earlier challenged the disciplinary proceedings in
O.A. No. 349/PB/2008. Vide order dated 27.07.2009 (Annexure A-3), this
Tribunal directed that an officer senior to respondent No. 2 should
conduct the enquiry and take a final decision within six months. The
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
enquiry report dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure A-4) held charge No. 1
established but charge No. 2 not established. The applicant alleges that
the findings were contradictory, relevant documents were not supplied,
and adequate opportunity to establish his defence was denied. He
submitted his reply to the enquiry report on 06.09.2010 (Annexure A-5).

​ ​ ​ ​ 3 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

5. ​ The applicant further submits that the respondents failed to
conclude the proceedings within the time prescribed by this Tribunal,
notwithstanding repeated directions. In O.A. No. 29/PB/2012, this
Tribunal, vide order dated 29.03.2012 (Annexure A-6), directed release of
leave encashment, GPF, pension and half of the gratuity, and required
completion of the disciplinary proceedings within three months. The
respondents' application for extension of time was dismissed on
11.09.2012, with the rider concerning provisional pension ordered to be
deleted (Annexure A-7). Vide order dated 10.10.2012 in M.A. No. 967 of
2012 (Annexure A-8), the applicant was permitted to file a fresh
application challenging the charge-sheet. Thereafter, in O.A. No.
1266-PB-2012, this Tribunal, vide order dated 02.05.2013 (Annexure
A-9), directed conclusion of the proceedings within one month, failing
which they would stand quashed, and required the competent authority to
consider the issue raised regarding the treatment of similarly situated
officials. The respondents' review application was dismissed on
08.01.2014 (Annexure A-10). However, the High Court, vide order dated
25.09.2017 in CWP No. 16503 of 2014 (Annexure A-11), set aside this
Tribunal's orders dated 02.05.2013 and 08.01.2014, while granting the
applicant liberty to challenge the penalty order dated 23.10.2013 in
accordance with law.
6. ​ The principal grounds urged against the impugned penalty are that
the proceedings were vitiated by undue delay, non-compliance with this
Tribunal's directions and discriminatory treatment. The applicant relies on
the Railway Board's instructions dated 30.04.1986 regarding the
prescribed timeline for finalisation of vigilance cases (Annexure A-13),
and contends that similarly situated officials, including N.K. Kohli and
Bharat Bhushan Gupta, were awarded minor penalties of censure vide
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
orders dated 29.10.2010 and 15.12.2009, respectively (Annexures A-15
and A-14). The applicant alleges that the respondents failed to consider
the treatment accorded to these officials while deciding his case.
7. ​ The applicant further challenges the disciplinary authority's
disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings. He contends that the

​ ​ ​ ​ 4 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

disagreement note was arbitrary and unsupported by the enquiry
findings, that his point-wise reply thereto was not duly considered, and
that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), while advising
imposition of the penalty, did not afford him an opportunity to respond to
its advice. The applicant asserts that the UPSC advice was supplied only
along with the penalty order, thereby depriving him of an effective
opportunity to defend himself.
8. ​ Relying upon State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal , AIR 1993 SC
1997 , the applicant submits that reliance on material not supplied to the
delinquent employee violates the principles of natural justice. He also
contends that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing preceded
the imposition of the pension cut and that the respondents failed to
assess the financial loss attributable to him before imposing the penalty.
The applicant accordingly maintains that the charge-sheet, enquiry
proceedings, disagreement note and consequential penalty suffer from
jurisdictional infirmity, arbitrariness, mala fides and violation of the
principles of natural justice.
9. ​ Per contra, the respondents submit that the impugned order dated
23.10.2013 (Annexure A-12), whereby the President imposed a cut of
20% in the applicant's monthly pension for three years under Rule 9 of
the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, has been passed by the
competent authority. The present O.A. is stated to have been filed
pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court vide order dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure A-11), and, therefore, the
scope of judicial review is confined to the legality of the punishment order
and the procedure leading thereto, and does not extend to reopening the
validity of the charge-sheet or the disciplinary proceedings, which have
already attained finality.
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
10. ​ It is contended by the respondents that the applicant has not
established any procedural irregularity, violation of the principles of
natural justice, prejudice caused to him, or lack of competence of the
President to pass the impugned order. The respondents assert that the
applicant's challenge is substantially directed against the charge-sheet

​ ​ ​ ​ 5 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

and the disciplinary proceedings, which falls beyond the liberty granted by
the High Court and the permissible scope of judicial review. The
respondents submit that the earlier objection regarding the competence
of the disciplinary authority issuing the charge-sheet stood cured
pursuant to this Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 349/PB/2008. Thereafter, the
applicant participated in the enquiry proceedings without protest. It is
further stated that the enquiry report, the applicant's reply thereto and
the entire record were duly considered by the President before passing
the order dated 23.10.2013 (Annexure A-12).
11. ​ With regard to the applicant's plea of delay and discrimination, the
respondents contend that the Railway Board instructions dated
30.04.1986 (Annexure A-13) are merely administrative guidelines and do
not confer any right of automatic exoneration. They further submit that
this Tribunal had permitted continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings, and that the applicant cannot claim exoneration merely on
account of delay. It is also denied that the applicant was similarly situated
to Sh. N.K. Kohli or Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, as those officials were
proceeded against under SF-11 for minor penalty, whereas the applicant
was charge-sheeted under SF-5 for major penalty proceedings. The
respondents further state that no material has been placed on record
regarding the other officers referred to by the applicant.
12. ​ The respondents deny that the CBI proceedings have any bearing
on the present matter, contending that the criminal investigation is
extraneous to the disciplinary proceedings. They further assert that the
applicant himself has not denied the allegation regarding splitting of
indents and that each case has to be examined on its own facts. As
regards the UPSC consultation, the respondents submit that Rule 28 of
the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 specifically
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
requires supply of the UPSC advice along with the final order, which was
duly complied with. It is contended that there is no statutory requirement
to furnish the advice before the order of punishment or to invite any reply
before the UPSC tenders its opinion. It is asserted by the respondents
that UPSC considered no fresh evidence, merely concurred with the

​ ​ ​ ​ 6 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

proposal of the disciplinary authority, and the applicant has neither
pleaded nor established any prejudice on account of supply of the advice
along with the penalty order.
13. ​ The respondents further contend that the President exercised
powers under Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, after
consultation with the UPSC, and was competent to withhold pension upon
finding the applicant guilty of grave misconduct. The punishment imposed
is stated to be commensurate with the misconduct proved and not
shockingly disproportionate. It is also submitted that the order passed by
the President under the Pension Rules is not appealable and this Tribunal
cannot interfere merely on the ground that a lesser punishment could
have been imposed.
14. ​ The respondents dispute the applicant's challenge to the
disagreement note, contending that the Enquiry Officer had ignored
material evidence, including the opinion of the Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents (GEQD), which indicated that the identifying code
appearing on the indents and bills had been written by the same person,
thereby supporting the finding of collusion. As such, it is contended by
the respondents that the disagreement with the Enquiry Officer was
justified, the applicant participated throughout the proceedings, no
principles of natural justice were violated, and the impugned order dated
23.10.2013 (Annexure A-12) having been passed by the competent
authority in accordance with the statutory rules, does not warrant
interference.
15. ​ In rejoinder, the applicant controverts the respondents' objection
that the scope of judicial review is confined to the quantum of
punishment and the process leading to the impugned order dated
23.10.2013 (Annexure A-12). He submits that this Tribunal is competent
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
to examine the entire decision-making process, including the
circumstances leading to the issuance of the charge-sheet dated
09.04.2008 (Annexure A-2), the conduct of the enquiry and the
consequential penalty. The applicant asserts that the proceedings were

​ ​ ​ ​ 7 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

marked by arbitrariness, undue delay and violation of the principles of
natural justice, warranting judicial interference.
16. ​ The applicant disputes the respondents' assertion that no
procedural irregularity or prejudice has been established. He reiterates
that the prescribed procedure was not followed during the disciplinary
proceedings and that the impugned penalty was imposed without duly
considering his defence. He maintains that the charge-sheet was issued
on 09.04.2008, two days after his compulsory retirement on 07.04.2008,
as evidenced by Annexures A-1 and A-2, and that the respondents cannot
rely upon an alleged typographical error to avoid the issue. He further
contends that the charge-sheet merged with the final penalty order and
that his challenge to the latter necessarily permits examination of the
underlying proceedings.
17. ​ On the plea of discriminatory treatment, the applicant disputes the
distinction drawn by the respondents between his case and those of Sh.
N.K. Kohli and Sh. Bharat Bhushan. He contends that, despite being
junior to the said officials, he was subjected to a major penalty of 20%
cut in pension, whereas they were awarded minor penalties of censure.
He alleges that the competent authority and the UPSC failed to consider
this disparity while determining the appropriate punishment. He also
maintains that the Railway Board's instructions dated 30.04.1986
(Annexure A-13) concerning the timeline for concluding vigilance cases
cannot be disregarded merely because they were issued several decades
ago, and that the issue of delay remains open for consideration.
18. ​ The applicant specifically disputes the respondents' contention that
non-supply of the UPSC advice caused no prejudice. He submits that the
advice, supplied only along with the impugned penalty order, was based
on a one-sided account and substantially reproduced the enquiry report
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
and disagreement note, without demonstrating independent application of
mind by the UPSC or the competent authority. He reiterates that the
failure to provide an effective opportunity to respond to the advice
vitiated the decision-making process and violated the principles of natural
justice.

​ ​ ​ ​ 8 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

19. ​ The applicant further denies that the effect of the punishment has
ceased merely because his withheld retiral dues have been released. He
submits that the 20% reduction in his monthly pension continues to
affect his pensionary entitlement and that the punishment is
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, particularly when officials
bearing greater responsibility were awarded lesser penalties. He rejects
the respondents' allegation that the present proceedings constitute an
abuse of process, stating that he has been pursuing his legal remedies for
several years.
20. ​ The applicant reiterates his challenge to the disagreement note and
the consequential findings, maintaining that his defence and the relevant
material were not duly considered. He disputes the respondents' reliance
on the GEQD opinion and their assertion that the evidence established
collusion, while reiterating the grounds urged in the Original Application.
21. ​ We have heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel for
both sides and perused the material on record.
22. ​ At the outset, it is necessary to outline the scope of the present
proceedings. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, vide order
dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure A-11), set aside this Tribunal's orders dated
02.05.2013 and granted liberty to the applicant to challenge the penalty
order dated 23.10.2013 in accordance with law. This Tribunal is not called
upon to substitute its own assessment of the evidence for that of the
disciplinary authority merely because another view may be possible.
Nevertheless, the grant of liberty to challenge the penalty order does not
exclude scrutiny of the procedural legality of the decision leading to that
order, including compliance with the principles of natural justice, the
applicable rules and regulations, and the law governing the same.
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
23. ​ The undisputed facts emerging out of the pleadings are that the
applicant served in Northern Railway and disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against him in relation to alleged irregularities concerning railway
material indents. The Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 14.07.2010
(Annexure A-4) held charge No. 1 established and charge No. 2 not

​ ​ ​ ​ 9 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

established. The applicant submitted his reply to the enquiry report on
06.09.2010 (Annexure A-5). The disciplinary authority disagreed with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, and the matter was considered in
consultation with the UPSC. Ultimately, vide order dated 23.10.2013
(Annexure A-12), the President imposed a penalty of withholding 20% of
the applicant's monthly pension for a period of three years under Rule 9
of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The UPSC advice
(Annexure A-16) was supplied to the applicant along with the impugned
order.
24. ​ The applicant primarily challenges the legality of the
decision-making process resulting in the impugned penalty order,
whereas the respondents maintain that the procedure prescribed under
the applicable rules was duly followed. The applicant has assailed the
impugned order on several grounds, including delay in the disciplinary
proceedings, alleged discriminatory treatment, the disagreement with the
Enquiry Officer's findings and non-supply of the UPSC advice before the
imposition of the penalty. While the respondents have contested these
grounds and maintained that the President acted in accordance with the
applicable rules, the question of compliance with the principles of natural
justice in relation to the UPSC advice merits specific consideration.
25. ​ Admittedly, the UPSC advice was only supplied to the applicant
along with the impugned penalty order dated 23.10.2013 (Annexure
A-12). The respondents justify this course by relying upon Rule 28 of the
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and contend that the
rule contemplates furnishing the advice along with the final order. The
applicant, on the other hand, submits that the advice formed part of the
material considered in reaching the decision against him and that
supplying it only after the penalty had been imposed deprived him of an
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
effective opportunity to respond to its contents.
26. ​ The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor , W.P.
(C) No. 5341 of 2006, decided on 16.03.2011 , has held:

​ ​ ​ ​ 10 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

“ 5. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is to be
relied upon in department proceedings, a copy of the same must be
supplied in advance to the charge-sheeted employee so that he may have
a chance to rebut the same.
6. Mr Qadri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of
the report of the Union Public Service Commission was supplied to the
respondent employee along with the dismissal order. He submitted that
this is valid in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. T.V
Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785. We do not agree.
7. In the aforesaid decision, it has been observed in SCC para 25 that
"the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not
mandatory". We are of the opinion that although Article 320(3)(c) is not
mandatory, if the authorities do consult the Union Public Service
Commission and rely on the report of the Commission for taking
disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice require that a
copy of the report must be supplied in advance to the employee
concerned so that he may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus, in our
view, the aforesaid decision in T.V Patel case (2007) 4 SCC 785 is clearly
distinguishable.
8. There may be a case where the report of the Union Public Service
Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that
case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the
employee concerned. However, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the
same must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise,
there will be violation of the principles of natural justice. This is also the
view taken by this Court in S.N Narula v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC
591.”
27. ​ The principle emerging from the said judgment is that where the
advice of the UPSC is relied upon in the decision-making process, the
affected employee must be afforded an appropriate opportunity to
examine that material, consistent with the requirements of natural
justice. The issue is not merely whether a copy of the advice was
eventually supplied, but whether the employee had an effective
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
opportunity to make a representation against material relied upon before
the final decision was taken. Applying the aforesaid principle to the
present case, the UPSC advice was admittedly furnished only along with
the final penalty order. Consequently, the applicant had no opportunity to

​ ​ ​ ​ 11 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

make a representation against the advice before the decision imposing
the withholding of 20% pension for three years was taken.
28. ​ Furthermore, perusal of the impugned punishment order dated
23.10.2013 (Annexure A-12) together with the advice of the UPSC dated
04.10.2012 (Annexure A-16) shows that while passing the punishment
order dated 23.10.2013, the advice of UPSC dated 04.10.2012 has been
relied upon to hold both the charges as proven, and accordingly, the
penalty advised by the Commission, i.e. “withholding of twenty percent of
the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Shri D.P. Singh (the CO) for
a period of three years”, has been imposed upon the applicant. In these
circumstances, the subsequent supply of the advice with the final order
could not restore the opportunity to make a representation before the
decision was taken. The procedure adopted thus suffers from an infirmity
warranting interference with the impugned order.
29. ​ In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
S.K. Kapoor (supra), we hold that the impugned order dated 23.10.2013
(Annexure A-12) cannot be sustained in law. Ordinarily, we would deem it
appropriate to remit the matter to the competent authority for
reconsideration in accordance with law, however, in the present case, the
applicant's service came to an end with effect from 07.04.2008, and the
impugned punishment order was passed on 23.10.2013. Having regard to
the long passage of time and the circumstances of the case, we do not
consider it appropriate to remit the matter for a fresh round of
disciplinary proceedings.
30. ​ Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order
dated 23.10.2013 (Annexure A-12), whereby 20% of the applicant's
monthly pension was withheld for a period of three years, is hereby
2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the
withheld pension to the applicant along with consequential benefits, if
any, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of
this order.

​ ​ ​ ​ 12 ​ (O.A.No.060/51/2018)

31. ​ The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms.
Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.



/s/
(ANJALI BHAWRA)
(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
MEMBER (A)
MEMBER (J)

2026.10.22
14:40:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'