Enhancement of penalty through a corrigendum without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice.

The applicant, a Traveling Ticket Examiner (TTE), was subjected to departmental proceedings under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1968, for failing to allot a berth after issuing an Excess Fare Ticket and for unauthorizedly allowing a couple to travel.

The Inquiry Officer found the first charge proved.

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) disagreed with certain findings and, following a disagreement memo, imposed a penalty on 06.04.2015.

On 06.11.2015, while a revision petition was pending, the DA issued a "corrigendum" modifying the penalty from reduction in pay "without postponing future increments" to "with postponing future increments".

The applicant challenged the punishment orders and the subsequent modification as being discriminatory and procedurally flawed.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority is required to provide the delinquent employee an opportunity to represent against a proposed penalty before its imposition.

2. Whether a "corrigendum" that modifies a penalty from "without postponing future increments" to "with postponing future increments" is legally sustainable without a fresh hearing.

3. Whether the absence of passenger testimony in a departmental inquiry vitiates the findings of guilt.

Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1968, which mandates the supply of the inquiry report but explicitly states that no opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty is necessary.

Rule 6(v) of the Railway Servants (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1968, which distinguishes between reductions in pay that postpone future increments and those that do not.

The principles from State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, holding that the strict Indian Evidence Act does not apply to domestic inquiries and hearsay is permissible if it has a reasonable nexus.

Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab to affirm that Article 14 does not envisage "negative equality".

The Tribunal analyzed Rule 10 and concluded that the DA followed proper procedure by inviting a representation on the inquiry report and disagreement memo; a second hearing on the specific quantum of punishment is not statutory.

Regarding the order dated 06.11.2015, the Tribunal found that changing the penalty to include the "postponing of future increments" constituted a substantive enhancement of punishment rather than a mere clerical correction.

Such an enhancement without notice violated principles of natural justice and Rule 6(v).

Regarding the lack of passenger witnesses, the Tribunal held that since other evidence (including a signed joint note and testimonies from investigating officers) supported the charges, the findings were not "perverse" or based on "no evidence," consistent with Supreme Court precedents on domestic inquiries.

The inquiry was valid despite the absence of passenger witnesses.

The order dated 06.11.2015 was quashed to the extent that it modified the penalty to "with postponing future increments," as it illegally enhanced the punishment.

The original penalty dated 06.04.2015 ("without postponing future increments") was upheld and the revising authority's order was modified accordingly.