Facts
The applicant, Shankar Prasad, while working as ACTI, was served a charge sheet dated 14.02.2008 under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Pension) Rules 1993
Source reference: p.2An Inquiry Officer was appointed, but the applicant requested a change, citing the officer's vigilance department background, which was rejected on 05.09.2011
Source reference: p.2The Inquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte and submitted a report, a copy of which was forwarded to the applicant on 23.02.2010
Source reference: p.2The applicant submitted a representation on 10.03.2010
Source reference: p.2As the applicant had superannuated, the case was forwarded to the Railway Board, and the Hon’ble President’s decision was communicated on 22.04.2014
Source reference: p.2The respondents stated that despite multiple inquiry dates (10.06.2008, 11.07.2008, 31.07.2008, 22.09.2008, 14.10.2008, 15.10.2008, 13.05.2009, 25.05.2009, 03.12.2009), the applicant consistently failed to attend, instead filing representations seeking documents or alleging bias against the Inquiry Officer
Source reference: pp.4-5The applicant did not comment on the inquiry report, expressing inability
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the charges leveled against the applicant were vague
Source reference: p.32. Whether the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry ex-parte improperly
Source reference: p.33. Whether the rejection of the applicant's request for change of Inquiry Officer and the subsequent partial re-inquiry were in violation of Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
Source reference: p.34. Whether the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the applicant's representation dated 10.03.2010 or assign reasons for its decision
Source reference: p.35. Whether there was a violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings
Source reference: p.11, p.15Law Applied
The court primarily relied on the settled principle that Courts/Tribunals have limited scope in interfering with the quantum of punishment or disciplinary proceedings unless there are discrepancies or shortcomings in the decision-making process or a violation of natural justice/procedural irregularity
Source reference: pp.6, 9This includes not re-appreciating evidence, interfering with inquiry conclusions if conducted lawfully, or questioning the adequacy or reliability of evidence
Source reference: p.13The court cited *S.R. Tewari v. Union of India* (2013) regarding the limited role of courts in departmental proceedings and the non-substitution of views
Source reference: p.9It further referenced *Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran* (2015), which outlines specific conditions under which a High Court can intervene in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that judicial review is for process correction, not re-evaluation of evidence
Source reference: pp.11-13The court also referred to *B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors.* (1995) and *State of Rajasthan v. Md. Ayub Naaz* (2006) on the scope of judicial review and proportionality of punishment
Source reference: pp.13-14The applicable procedural rules for the inquiry were the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968
Source reference: p.7Reasoning
The court found that the basic facts, including the issuance of the charge sheet and the conduct of inquiry, were not denied
Source reference: p.6It noted that the charge sheet contained all necessary annexures
Source reference: p.6-7The applicant was given multiple opportunities to attend the inquiry but repeatedly absented himself, instead filing representations, which were considered and rejected by the respondents
Source reference: pp.4-5, 7The applicant also expressed inability to comment on the inquiry report
Source reference: p.7The court determined that there was substantial compliance with the prescribed disciplinary procedures and that ample opportunity was provided to the applicant, precluding any claim of natural justice violation or procedural irregularity
Source reference: p.14It further stated that no evidence of bias, malice, or perversity was found
Source reference: p.15Applying the principle of limited judicial review, the court refused to act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings, particularly when the disciplinary authority's conclusions were based on available evidence and the applicant himself failed to participate
Source reference: pp.8-10, 14Holding
The court concluded that the applicant failed to make a case for interference with the respondents' actions in conducting the inquiry
It held that there was no illegality, infirmity, or violation of the principles of natural justice or the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
Source reference: p.15Consequently, the Original Application No. 436/2015 was dismissed without costs
Source reference: p.15Original Court PDF
Shankar Prasadvs.Union of India and Others, Original Application No. 436 of 2015
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in