Disciplinary Inquiry Proceedings Conducted During Pendency of a Bias Petition are Procedurally Vitiated and Legally Unsustainable

The applicant, a Deputy Chief Material Manager in the South Eastern Railway, was served a Charge Memorandum dated 17.07.2020 alleging misconduct during his previous tenure

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and an Inquiry Officer (IO) and Presenting Officer (PO) were appointed on 20.10.2020.

The applicant repeatedly requested inspection of original Relevant Useable Documents (RUDs), which were in the custody of a CBI Court

On 30.07.2021, the applicant filed a detailed representation alleging bias against the IO

Despite the pending bias petition, the IO proceeded with the inquiry ex-parte on 06.08.2021 and 31.08.2021

The bias petition was eventually rejected by the Revisionary Authority on 21.12.2021

The applicant challenged the charge sheet, the appointment of the retired IO, the denial of original RUDs, and the continuation of the inquiry pending the bias decision

1. Whether a retired Railway Officer is competent to function as an Inquiry Officer under the RS(D&A) Rules, 1968

2. Whether the non-supply of original RUDs, when certified copies are provided, vitiates the disciplinary proceedings

3. Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted during the pendency of a bias representation against the IO are legally sustainable

The court applied Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Alok Kumar, which affirms the legality of appointing retired officers as Inquiry Officers

Regarding judicial review, the court relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. UOI and State of Karnataka v. Umesh, establishing that courts should not act as appellate authorities but must ensure compliance with natural justice and statutory rules

The court also referenced Para 13 of Master Circular 67, which implies that an inquiry should generally be stayed until a formal bias petition is considered by the competent authority

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Charge Memorandum or the appointment of the retired IO, noting that precedents clearly allow retired officials to conduct inquiries

Regarding the RUDs, the court reasoned that since the originals were in judicial custody with the CBI Court, the provision of certified copies authenticated by a competent agency was a legally acceptable substitute and did not violate procedural fairness

Once the respondents took cognizance of the applicant’s detailed bias representation dated 30.07.2021 and referred it to the Railway Board, the IO ought to have stayed the proceedings. The continuation of the inquiry and the subsequent ex-parte orders while the bias challenge was pending violated the principles of natural justice

It held that the inquiry proceedings conducted after 30.07.2021 were flawed due to the failure to stay the process pending the bias decision

The Tribunal ordered the inquiry proceedings conducted after 30.07.2021 to be set aside and directed the respondents to resume the disciplinary proceedings from the stage following the inquiry held on 14.07.2021. MA 346/2025 was dismissed as infructuous