Facts
The respondent, a Railway employee, was removed from service without a departmental inquiry under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
Source reference: pp. 1–3, para. 4The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the removal order, reinstated the respondent, and reserved liberty to the petitioners to proceed by a proper disciplinary inquiry. The Union of India and others challenged that decision by writ petition
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Issues
Whether the Disciplinary Authority could dispense with a departmental inquiry under Rule 14(ii) without recording legally sufficient reasons for doing so
Source reference: pp. 1, 3–4, paras. 2–7Whether the Tribunal’s decision to set aside the removal order and reinstate the respondent warranted interference by the High Court
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 9–10Law Applied
Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which the Court noted is pari materia with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, permits dispensing with a disciplinary inquiry only where the competent authority has a legally sustainable basis for doing so; the authority must record reasons showing why holding the inquiry is inexpedient or impracticable
Source reference: pp. 1, 3–4, paras. 2–3, 7The Court relied on Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, and Sahadeo Singh v. Union of India for the principle that an inquiry cannot be mechanically dispensed with and that cogent reasons must be recorded
Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 8Reasoning
The removal order stated that the Disciplinary Authority did not find merit in giving the respondent an opportunity to defend himself and did not want to hold an inquiry.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 4–7The Court held that this amounted to treating the decision as a matter of the Authority’s unfettered discretion, contrary to the requirement to record cogent reasons under Rule 14(ii) and Article 311(2)(b)
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 6–8Holding
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the writ petition in limine
The respondent’s reinstatement therefore stood, while the petitioners retained liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law by conducting a proper disciplinary inquiry
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Original Court PDF
Union Of India & Ors.vsChakresh Kumar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
