Rule 14(ii): Imposition of Penalties
No.E(D&A)86 RG6-74, dated 13.04.1987
Sub: Imposition of penalties under rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 which corresponds to item (b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
1. Attention is invited to Railway Board’s letter No.E(D&A)85 RG6-72, dated 06.02.1986 and 16.05.1986 and the Department of Personnel’s Office Memoranda dated 11.11.1985 and 04.04.1986 enclosed therewith. General guidelines have been given in these communications regarding the types of cases where Rule 14(ii) of the RS(D&A) Rules can be invoked. As per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with the disciplinary enquiry lightly or irrelevantly or out of ulterior motices or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because Department’s case against the railway servant is weak and is, therefore, bond to fail. What is essentially required is that holding of inquiry is not reasonable practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. The Supreme Court have also ruled that the finality given to the decision of the disciplinary authority for dispensing with the enquiry is not finding on Court (now also CAT) so far as its power of judicial review is concerned and the Court is competent to strike down the order dispensing with the inquiry as also the order imposing the punishment should such a course of action be considered necessary by the Court in the circumstances of the case.
2. Recently a case has come to notice where Rule 14(ii) was resorted to against a Welfare Inspector in charge of a Handicrafts Centre on a Railway. In this case, the disciplinary authority had recorded that if normal procedure is followed, it is likely that the evidence may be destroyed and the lady members of the Mahila Samiti may not come up to give their evidence on account of fear of threat/ harassment etc. In this case, the Supreme Court had ruled that such grounds are irrelevant and ex-facie inadequate for dispensing with the inquiry. Another case has also come to notice where Rule 14(ii) was resorted to against a railway servant on the charge of collecting money from unemployed young man on the pretext of giving them jobs on the Railway. The inquiry in this case was dispensed with by the disciplinary authority mainly on the ground that the concerned unemployed young men refused to become witnesses apprehending physical intimidation, injury at the hands of charged railway servant etc. In this case, the CAT had stated that the case could be established on the basis of even documentary evidence and the unemployed young men were actually not afraid of the charged railway servant but of only possible harassment by police/ railway authorities who conduct enquiries in such cases. The CAT had, therefore, set aside the removal under Rule 14(ii) in the second case.
3. The above typical cases are brought to your notice so that all the disciplinary authorities may be asked to bear in mind the guidelines already circulated in this regard to avoid use of Rule 14(ii) where the circumstances do not warrant such action.
Please acknowledge receipt. Hindi version will follow.
Download Railway Board Circular dated 13.04.1987
Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.