Charge sheet for major penalty by an authority incompetent to impose such penalty is invalid.

The applicant, Sanjeev Kumar Charan, a Chief Law Assistant, was issued a charge sheet for a major penalty under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (RSDA Rules) on October 12, 2017, by the Deputy Chief Claims Officer (CCO)

The charge alleged possession of a forged medical identity card with the intent to avail medical benefits

The applicant denied the charges on November 9, 2017

An inquiry was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on October 31, 2018

The Deputy CCO, not being competent to impose a major penalty, referred the matter to the CCO

The CCO found the charge proved and imposed the penalty of removal from service on December 20, 2018

The applicant's appeal against this penalty was dismissed by the Appellate Authority

The applicant then filed the Original Application (OA) challenging the charge memorandum and the subsequent penalty orders

Whether the Deputy CCO, who was not competent to impose a major penalty, was competent to issue the charge sheet against the applicant for a major penalty under Rule 9 of the RSDA Rules

The court primarily applied Rule 8(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which permits a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings for major penalties, notwithstanding that it is not competent to impose such a penalty, but this is "Subject to the provisions of clause (C) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2" of the RSDA Rules

Rule 2(1)(c)(iii) of the RSDA Rules defines "disciplinary authority" in relation to a non-gazetted Railway servant for the imposition of a major penalty as an authority competent to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 6

The court also considered the clarification issued by the Railway Board vide letter dated February 4, 1971, which stated that only an authority competent to impose any of the major penalties should initiate disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of such a penalty on non-gazetted staff

The court analyzed the interplay between Rule 8(2) and Rule 2(1)(c)(iii) of the RSDA Rules to determine the competency of the Deputy CCO to issue a charge sheet for a major penalty

It noted that Rule 8(2) allows a disciplinary authority to initiate proceedings for major penalties even if not competent to impose them, but this power is explicitly "subject to" Rule 2(1)(c)(iii)

For non-gazetted Railway servants like the applicant, Rule 2(1)(c)(iii) defines a "disciplinary authority" for major penalties as an authority competent to impose such penalties

The court found that since the Deputy CCO was admittedly not competent to impose a major penalty, he did not meet the definition of a "disciplinary authority" under Rule 2(1)(c)(iii) for initiating major penalty proceedings against a non-gazetted employee

This interpretation was further supported by a Railway Board clarification dated February 4, 1971, which explicitly stated that only an authority competent to impose major penalties should initiate such proceedings against non-gazetted staff

The court distinguished the respondent's reliance on judgments like Pushkar Chancier Gupta and Tilak Raj Handa, finding them inapplicable or supporting its view

Therefore, the Deputy CCO was deemed an incompetent authority to issue the charge sheet for a major penalty

Consequently, the impugned Memorandum (charge sheet) dated October 12, 2017 (Annexure-A/1) was quashed and set aside

As a result of quashing the charge memorandum, the subsequent penalty order of removal from service dated May 16, 2023 (Annexure-A/2) and the appellate authority's order dated July 21, 2023 (Annexure-A/3) were also quashed and set aside

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant

The court clarified that its decision did not restrain the respondents from initiating fresh disciplinary action against the applicant as per law

The OA was allowed