Disciplinary penalty is unsustainable where the charge-sheet omits relied-upon materials and the inquiry report is withheld.

The applicant, a Trackman-IV/Gangman employed with the North Western Railway since 23 January 2016, was served with a major-penalty charge memorandum dated 16 August 2020 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The allegation was that he had made false complaints and allegations against his In-charge and Mate, allegedly violating Rule 3 of the Railway Services Conduct Rules.

The applicant contended that the charge memorandum did not contain the requisite statement of imputations, list of relied-upon documents, or list of witnesses, and that these materials were never supplied to him.

The Inquiry Officer allegedly concluded the proceedings after recording the applicant’s written statement, treating it as a confession. The applicant maintained that he had been pressured to admit the charge and that his statement merely acknowledged that he had joined the complaint on the basis of hearsay and had expressed regret.

The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18 September 2020, but the report was not supplied to the applicant before the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding increments for three years on 22 September 2020.

The applicant’s appeal was rejected on 5 November 2020. During the pendency of his revision petition, the Reviewing Authority reduced the penalty to withholding of increments for two years with future effect by order dated 3 August 2021.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the charge memorandum did not furnish definite articles of charge, the statement of imputations, and the lists of relied-upon documents and witnesses required under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968?

2. Whether the alleged admission or confession of the applicant could, by itself, justify the finding of guilt without a properly conducted inquiry and without establishing that the admission was voluntary, clear, and unequivocal?

3. Whether non-supply of the Inquiry Officer’s report before imposition of penalty violated the principles of natural justice?

4. Whether the appellate order was legally unsustainable for failing to consider and give reasons on the material grounds raised by the applicant?

5. Whether the differential punishment imposed upon the applicant, as compared with other employees involved in the same complaint, amounted to discriminatory treatment?

The Tribunal applied Rule 9(6) and 9(7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which require definite and distinct articles of charge, a statement of imputations containing relevant facts, and lists of documents and witnesses proposed to prove the charges.

It applied the principles of natural justice, including the right to a reasonable opportunity of defence, the right to meet the evidence relied upon, and the right to receive and respond to the Inquiry Officer’s report before final punishment.

On judicial review, the Tribunal relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610; SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612; and State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563, holding that courts do not re-appreciate evidence but may interfere for procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, findings based on no evidence, perversity, or disproportionate punishment.

The Tribunal further relied on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, for the requirement that quasi-judicial disciplinary and appellate orders must be reasoned and supported by legally usable material.

It also applied A. Masilamani v. LIC, (2013) 6 SCC 530, and Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, (2017) 2 SCC 308, concerning the appropriate relief where an inquiry is procedurally defective.

The principle against discriminatory punishment in cases involving substantially identical charges was drawn from State of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh, JT 2001 (Supp. 1) SC 44.

The Tribunal found that the charge memorandum was fundamentally defective because the purported Annexures III and IV did not contain the required lists of documents and witnesses, and the respondents failed to establish that these materials had been furnished to the applicant.

The RPF investigation material and statements could not automatically be treated as substantive evidence in the disciplinary inquiry without giving the applicant an effective opportunity to meet and, where appropriate, challenge that material.

The applicant’s written statement showed, at most, that he had joined the complaint on the basis of hearsay and regretted doing so; it was not an unequivocal admission that he had deliberately made false allegations against his superiors.

In view of the applicant’s allegation of pressure, the alleged confession required careful scrutiny and could not be mechanically treated as conclusive proof.

The Tribunal further held that the Inquiry Officer’s adverse report was not supplied before the penalty was imposed, depriving the applicant of a meaningful opportunity to make a representation at a material stage of the proceedings.

The appellate authority also failed to independently address the applicant’s objections regarding the defective charge sheet, denial of documents, non-supply of the inquiry report, and disproportionality of punishment; a cryptic confirmation did not satisfy the duty to pass a reasoned order.

The subsequent reduction of the penalty by the Reviewing Authority could not cure these foundational procedural defects.

Finally, the respondents did not adequately explain why the applicant received a materially different punishment from two employees involved in the same complaint, thereby reinforcing the conclusion of non-application of mind and possible discriminatory treatment.

The Original Application was allowed.

The penalty order dated 22 September 2020, the appellate order dated 5 November 2020, and the reviewing order dated 3 August 2021 were quashed and set aside.

The applicant was held entitled to consequential service benefits flowing from the quashing of the penalty, subject to the applicable rules, and the respondents were directed to complete the consequential exercise within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.