Selective prosecution and failure to conduct joint disciplinary proceedings for a single incident vitiates findings of guilt.

The petitioner, an Assistant Personnel Officer in the Railways, was charge-sheeted in 1999 for allegedly suppressing the fact that his daughter was appearing for a Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) exam at a center where he requested to be the Center-in-Charge, and for using his position to help her solve the paper with the aid of a subordinate, Raju Worlikar

Parallel separate inquiries were initiated against other staff: S.A. Gajre (charged with making a misleading statement that the petitioner was absent during the exam), Baria (the invigilator), and D.D. Parmar

The inquiry officer found the charges established based primarily on the testimony of Raju Worlikar, leading to the petitioner’s removal from service on 08.04.2005

His appeals were rejected, and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his challenge, holding that it could not interfere with the adequacy of evidence

The petitioner challenged these orders via the present writ petition.

The court applied the principle that while judicial review of departmental inquiries is limited, interference is mandatory in cases of patent perversity, mala fides, or "no evidence"

Rule 13 of The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which mandates that where two or more railway servants are concerned in a case, the competent authority may (and normally should) direct disciplinary action in common proceedings

The court also invoked the principle that an employer cannot selectively target employees in a coordinated misconduct case to use one as an "approver" to secure findings against others

The court found the inquiry perverse on several grounds. First, the Railways suppressed a crucial statement by S.A. Gajre (Center-in-Charge) who stated the petitioner was absent during the exam

Second, though the misconduct was allegedly a coordinated effort involving four officials, the Railways conducted separate inquiries to prevent the contradictions in their stories from coming to light

The court noted that Baria and D.D. Parmar were given minor penalties for the same incident, while the petitioner was removed

Crucially, the prosecution’s star witness, Raju Worlikar—who admittedly performed the tampering—was never charged, indicating a "witch hunt" against the petitioner

The court observed that Worlikar’s testimony about "tick marks" was contradicted by the actual answer sheet, which contained only numbers

The failure to hold a joint inquiry under Rule 13 led to a travesty of justice by shielding some and targeting one

It ruled that a common inquiry is the norm for single incidents involving multiple servants to ensure truth and prevent prejudice

The court quashed the removal order (08.04.2005), the appellate order, and the CAT judgment [para. 79]. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was declared entitled to all consequential benefits, to be computed and paid within eight weeks