Disciplinary Authority may reject belated bias petitions without referral; Inquiry Officer’s age does not vitiate proceedings.

The applicant, an officer of the Indian Railway Stores Service (IRSS), was served a Charge Memorandum dated 14.11.2018 alleging serious irregularities in the purchase of non-stock items, acceptance of exorbitant rates, and extending undue benefits to suppliers while posted as Sr. DMM/SECR/Nagpur.

A retired officer, Shri L.C. Majumdar, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer (IO).

The applicant challenged the proceedings on several grounds: that the IO was over 70 years of age in violation of Railway Board guidelines; that he was denied adequate opportunity to inspect Relied Upon Documents (RUDs); and that the Inquiry was conducted in a biased and ex-parte manner.

Notably, a first bias petition was rejected by the President of India (Revisionary Authority) on 03.12.2020.

A second bias petition dated 12.01.2021 was disposed of by the General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) without forwarding it to the Revisionary Authority.

1. Whether the appointment of an Inquiry Officer exceeding 70 years of age vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

2. Whether the non-forwarding of the second bias petition to the Revisionary Authority by the Disciplinary Authority constitutes a procedural illegality.

3. Whether the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The court applied the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

Regarding the handling of bias petitions, the court relied on Railway Board instructions dated 19.06.1974, RBE No. 262/1999, and the Railway Board letter dated 27.12.2022.

These rules establish that while bias petitions generally require a stay of proceedings and referral to a revising authority, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to withhold petitions that do not disclose a new case or are filed as dilatory tactics after the charged official has already participated in the inquiry.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had participated in 19 out of 26 regular hearings and had cross-examined prosecution witnesses, concluding that adequate opportunity for defense was provided.

Regarding the IO's age, the Tribunal noted that although the IO was over 70, the respondents had obtained a "one-time exemption" from the Railway Board, and mere age does not vitiate the proceedings.

On the issue of bias, the Tribunal held that the first petition was properly adjudicated by the President.

The second petition, filed mid-inquiry, was based on the IO's decisions during the conduct of the case rather than pre-existing bias.

Under RBE 262/1999 and the 2022 instructions, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in disposing of the second petition at its own level because the applicant had already acquiesced to the IO's appointment by participating in the proceedings and failed to raise these grounds at the initial stage.

It ruled that the Disciplinary Authority acted within its discretionary powers in not forwarding the repetitive and belated bias petition.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and vacated all interim orders, allowing the disciplinary process to proceed.