Failure to appoint a presenting officer does not invalidate a disciplinary inquiry where the employee receives a fair opportunity to defend.

The applicant, a Loco Pilot (Goods) with South Central Railway, was charged with failing to ensure proper coupling and brake-pipe continuity between coupled locomotives, and failing to stop or alert the leading crew during a movement on 21 June 2017.

The coupled locomotives entered the wrong siding and collided with a stationary goods train, killing its guard.

Following a departmental inquiry that found the charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority ordered the applicant’s removal from service; the Appellate Authority affirmed that penalty.

On revision, the Revising Authority modified the removal penalty to reinstatement as a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, with reduced pay for five years with cumulative effect, on humanitarian grounds.

The applicant challenged the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders before the Tribunal, alleging procedural defects, denial of a fair opportunity and inadequately reasoned decisions.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the charge articles and statement of imputations were allegedly identically worded, contrary to Railway Board instructions.

2. Whether the inquiry was procedurally unfair or invalid because no Presenting Officer was appointed, defence evidence was not allowed, listed documents were not all taken on record, and the applicant was allegedly not examined in accordance with Rule 9.

3. Whether the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders were liable to be set aside for failing to consider the applicant’s submissions or to provide reasoned findings.

4. Whether the findings of misconduct and the resulting penalty, as modified in revision, could be sustained on the inquiry record.

The Tribunal considered Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, governing major-penalty inquiries and the opportunity to present a defence, and Rule 22(2), relied on by the applicant in support of his contention that the appellate authority must consider the appeal and give reasons.

It also considered Rule 25 concerning revision, and General and Subsidiary Rules SR 4.32 and SR 3.84 concerning the crew’s responsibilities for coupling and brake-pipe connections and assistance in stopping or reducing a train’s speed.

Railway Board letters dated 23 September 1968 and 30 December 1968 require the charge article to be concise and the statement of imputations to provide supporting details; the Tribunal found the two were not identical in this case.

The Tribunal held that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer did not, by itself, invalidate the inquiry, and distinguished Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma and Moni Shankar v. Union of India on their facts.

The Tribunal found that the charge article was concise while the statement of imputations supplied supporting details, and therefore rejected the claim that the charge memorandum violated the Railway Board instructions.

It accepted the respondents’ account that the applicant had opportunities to inspect documents, cross-examine witnesses and submit defence evidence, but had not sought to produce defence witnesses or documents; it also held that appointment of a Presenting Officer was not mandatory.

On the merits, the Tribunal relied on the inquiry evidence and the applicant’s responsibility, as crew of the trailing locomotive, to alert the leading crew or apply the available brakes when required.

It concluded that the applicant’s failures contributed to the collision and the guard’s death.

The Tribunal further observed that the Revising Authority had reduced the penalty on humanitarian grounds rather than on the merits, and considered the applicant’s reliance on the cited Supreme Court decisions inapposite to the facts.

The revisional order modifying the removal penalty remained undisturbed; there was no order as to costs.