Tribunal declined to interfere with disciplinary proceedings kept in abeyance pending the criminal case.

The applicant, a retired Indian Railway Accounts Service officer, served as Special Secretary, Infrastructure & Investment Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, on deputation from 2007 to 2009.

In connection with the VANPIC project, the CBI registered RC No. 19(A)/2011 and filed a chargesheet alleging conspiracy, abuse of official position, undue favour to VANPIC Ports Pvt. Ltd., and wrongful loss to the State Government.

The applicant was arrested on 15.05.2012 and was deemed to have been suspended after remaining in custody for more than 48 hours; his deemed suspension ceased from 17.01.2014.

The Railway Board issued a major-penalty charge memorandum dated 30.03.2017 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, shortly before the applicant’s retirement on 31.03.2017.

Attempts were allegedly made to serve it personally and thereafter by registered post, but it was communicated to the applicant only subsequently, including through a letter dated 22.01.2018.

The applicant challenged the charge memorandum and the subsequent communication on grounds including incompetence of the initiating authority, non-service before retirement, violation of Rule 26, inapplicability of Rule 15, and prejudice caused by simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings.

The Tribunal initially stayed the departmental inquiry on 05.03.2018, but vacated the stay on 23.02.2023 and permitted the respondents to proceed.

Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer recommended keeping the matter in abeyance pending the criminal case, and the Disciplinary Authority passed a speaking order dated 20.02.2025 directing that the departmental proceedings remain stayed until conclusion of the criminal case.

1. Whether the charge memorandum dated 30.03.2017 was validly initiated and served before the applicant’s retirement, including whether the respondents complied with Rule 26 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968.

2. Whether the Railway Board possessed jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and whether Rule 15 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 applied to the applicant after his repatriation from deputation.

3. Whether departmental proceedings could lawfully continue simultaneously with the criminal prosecution arising from the same VANPIC allegations and evidence.

4. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the disciplinary proceedings when the Disciplinary Authority had directed that they remain in abeyance pending the criminal case.

The proceedings were governed by the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, particularly Rule 9 concerning initiation of major-penalty proceedings, Rule 15 concerning proceedings relating to misconduct during deputation, Rule 26 concerning service of notices and documents, and Rule 9(23) concerning ex parte inquiry.

The respondents also relied on Rule 9(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, under which disciplinary proceedings instituted before retirement may continue after retirement.

The general principle relied upon by the respondents was that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and are governed by different standards of proof, namely preponderance of probabilities in departmental proceedings and proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had attempted service of the charge memorandum by hand and through registered post, and that the applicant had subsequently participated in the inquiry after the stay was vacated.

However, rather than finally adjudicating the objections concerning jurisdiction, service, retirement, or the overlap with the criminal case, the Tribunal examined the subsequent procedural developments.

Although the respondents had obtained vacation of the interim stay to proceed with the inquiry, the appointed Inquiry Officer ultimately recommended that the matter await the criminal case, and the Disciplinary Authority formally directed that the proceedings remain in abeyance by order dated 20.02.2025.

In view of that order, and because the applicant continued to receive provisional pension without an immediate adverse consequence, the Tribunal found no sufficient ground for interference at that stage.

The Original Application was disposed of, with liberty to both parties to proceed further in accordance with law when appropriate.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.