Mere production of documents without proving contents through witnesses vitiates departmental inquiry findings for lack of evidence.

The applicant, a Station Master under the Moradabad Division of Northern Railway, was initially served a minor penalty charge sheet (SF-11) on December 4, 2009, for alleged misconduct, including consuming alcohol on duty and violating safety rules.

After 185 days, the SF-11 was cancelled and replaced by a major penalty charge sheet (SF-5) on June 7, 2010, based on the same facts.

Following an inquiry, the Divisional Operations Manager imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement on December 28, 2012.

On appeal, the Senior Divisional Operations Manager (Sr. DOM) set aside this order on April 16, 2013, remanding the case for fresh consideration.

Upon remand, the same Sr. DOM, who had previously acted as the Appellate Authority, assumed the role of Disciplinary Authority and re-imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement via order dated June 19, 2013.

A subsequent appeal to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager was rejected on November 13, 2013.

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the findings regarding intoxication and unauthorized absence were sustainable in the absence of medical evidence and the regularization of the absence period.

3. Whether the punishment order was vitiated by the fact that the same authority acted as both the Appellate and Disciplinary Authority at different stages of the proceeding.

Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which mandates a specific procedure for proving charges through oral and documentary evidence.

SR-2.09/1, which requires independent witnesses or a medical report to prove intoxication.

M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, holding that mere production of a document does not constitute proof of its contents; the writer must be produced for cross-examination.

Satendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, affirming that departmental inquiries are quasi-judicial and findings must be supported by evidence rather than hearsay or unproved documents.

Regarding the charge of intoxication, the Tribunal noted a total absence of medical evidence or independent witness testimony required under SR-2.09/1, rendering the finding "illegal and based on no evidence".

The charge of unauthorized absence was dismissed because the respondents had already regularized the period of absence, precluding it from being a ground for punishment.

Regarding the safety violations (Charge II), the Tribunal observed that the inquiry was concluded in a single day and relied on a report by PW-1 that was never produced or proved during the proceedings, violating the standards set in M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

The Tribunal highlighted a critical procedural impropriety: the Sr. DOM, having acted as the Appellate Authority to remand the case, could not subsequently act as the Disciplinary Authority to issue the punishment order, as no authority can simultaneously fulfill both roles in the same matter.

It held that the inquiry was a case of "no evidence" and the procedure followed was contrary to Rule 9 and principles of natural justice.

Since the applicant had already reached the age of superannuation, the Tribunal directed the respondents to treat him as having continued in service until his normal retirement date and to grant all consequential retiral and pensionary benefits within three months.