Although Railway Vigilance Manual Is Procedural, It Can't Be Ignored As It Safeguards Employees From False Implication: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that although the Railway Vigilance Manual, 1996 ('Manual') is procedural and does not confer any rights to the delinquent, a complete go-by cannot be given to the procedure as it safeguards railway employees from false implication.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi heavily relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) to arrive at the above-mentioned conclusion.

"Thus, it is well settled in law that the safeguards provided to a railway employee under Paras 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual, 1996, cannot be given a complete go- bye and in order to judge whether the departmental proceedings stood vitiated or not the cumulative effect of illegalities/irregularities is required to be taken into consideration," it was held.

The Bench while upholding the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal held that, to determine whether departmental proceeds were vitiated, the collective effect of the irregularities/illegalities should be taken into consideration, and that in the present case, there were plenty of lacunas presented by the railway authorities that would lead to the proceedings being vitiated. It observed:

"In view of the findings recorded that the trap was not conducted as per Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual; there was no independent witness, the alleged statement of the delinquent during vigilance check could not be relied against him without any corroboration and the C.C notes were not recovered from the delinquent, coupled with the fact that the enquiry officer acted as a presenting officer and no presenting officer was appointed; we hold in point No.1 that the. proceedings and the penalty orders are vitiated. The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect does not call for any interference."

The case of the writ petitioners/ Railway Authorities was that, in 1997, the respondent employee who was working as a ticket collector, allowed a passenger to travel on the train without any ticket. It was argued that upon questioning, the respondent/ employee denied the charges.

Railways submitted that the disciplinary Authority/ Asst Commercial Manager (ACM) appointed an Enquiry officer, who concluded that the charges had been proved, and a penalty of 'no increment for 40 months' was awarded.

The respondent appealed against the order and during the pendency of the appeal, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager issued a show cause notice to the respondent/employee proposing to enhance punishment to 'compulsory retirement'. This notice was also challenged, and the Court ordered the railway authorities to not take any action until the disposal of the Appeal.

It was argued that once the appeal was dismissed, the Divisional Commercial Manager issued a notice proposing compulsory retirement and this time issued orders in furtherance of the same, which were challenged and set aside by the Tribunal.

The setting aside of the tribunal order was being challenged in the present petition.

The petitioners/ railway authorities contended that the non-compliance with the Railway Manual does not vitiate the proceedings and that even if the enchantment order was passed out of jurisdiction, the Tribunal should have upheld the initial punitive order.

The High Court conceded with the view taken by the Tribunal, that the procedure was not followed as laid down by the Manual and neither was there substantial evidence to make a case of the Authorities thus vitiating the proceedings.

Adding to that, the division bench held that the enhancing authority as per the Railways Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,1969 cannot be made to the Divisional Commercial Manager because they rank as Junior Administrative Grade Officer and suo moto enhancement can only be made by an authority higher than the appellant authority.

Lastly, the Court held that once the proceedings had been vitiated the question of punishment did not arise and upheld the order of the tribunal.

"We do not find force in the submission of the learned Central Government Counsel that if the revisional order was not passed by competent authority, the Tribunal should have maintained the order of penalty as passed by the Disciplinary Authority, for the obvious reason, that on the findings recorded by the Tribunal and considered in Point No.1 (supra) even the penalty order of the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. Once the original order of penalty is unsustainable its enhancement by the authority revising it for higher punishment also cannot stand, irrespective of the point of jurisdiction," it concluded.

WP 13000 OF 2018

Counsel for petitioner: Venna Hemanth Kumar ( Central Government)

Counsel for respondent: K.R.K.V Prasad

Click Here To Read/Download Order