LI Network
Published on: December 22, 2023 at 11:50 IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court underscored the significance of the Railway Vigilance Manual, 1996 (‘Manual’), stating that while procedural, it plays a crucial role in safeguarding railway employees from false implications.
The court’s decision, delivered by the Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, relied heavily on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008).
The Court clarified that although the Manual is procedural and does not confer rights to the accused, completely ignoring the prescribed procedure is not permissible.
The Manual’s provisions, specifically under Paras 704 and 705, offer essential safeguards for railway employees and must be considered to prevent false implications.
The Bench upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, emphasizing that the collective effect of irregularities and illegalities should be taken into account when determining if departmental proceedings were vitiated.
The Court 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 case involved a railway employee accused of allowing a passenger to travel without a ticket in 1997. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in a penalty of ‘no increment for 40 months.’ The Tribunal set aside the order, and subsequent attempts to enhance the punishment to ‘compulsory retirement’ were challenged and dismissed.
The High Court concurred with the Tribunal’s view, emphasizing that non-compliance with the Railway Manual and lack of substantial evidence vitiated the proceedings. Additionally, the court highlighted that the authority proposing enhancement must be higher than the appellant authority, and once the proceedings were deemed vitiated, the question of punishment did not arise.
The Court concluded by upholding the order of the Tribunal, stating, “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.”