D&A Rules: Clarification
No.E51 RG6-20, dated 08.04.1953
Sub: Rules regulating discipline and appeal of non-gazetted railway employees.
Reference Boards secret/ open letter No.E51 RG6-20, dated the 14th April, 1952 on the above mentioned subject. In connection with the revised disciplinary procedure prescribed therein, certain points have been raised for clarification of the Board. The points raised and the orders of the Railway Board thereon have been given in the form of a statement which is appended to this letter, for your information and guidance. The actual amendment to the Discipline and Appeal rules on the basis of the clarifications now given, will be issued shortly.
| Points raised | Board’s orders | |
| 1 | Weather it is necessary to hold an enquiry in all cases of removal from service irrespective of whether the accused employee has asked for one or not. | It is not the intention that the enquiry should be held in all cases of removal from services. The provision should be interpreted to mean that the enquiry should be ordered in the circumstances as in the case of dismissal, vide Rule 1707(C)-R.I. |
| 2 | At the time of the enquiry held, or the personal hearing given to an accused railway servant before disposing of his appeal whether an official of a Trade union not recognised by the railway or belonging to a non-railway union, may be permitted to appear on behalf of the accused employee. | The Board do not consider it advisable to allow officials of Trade Unions, other than recognised railway unions to appear on behalf of the accused employee. |
| 3 | What facilities should be allowed to the person accompanying an accused railway servant; (i) if he is another railway employee, or (ii) if he is a Trade Union official. | Re.(i), The railway employee accompanying another railway employee, should be allowed such facilities as are allowed to him in terms of Board’s letter No.E41 RG6-2, dated 4th Feby., 1941, (copy enclosed). Re.(ii), passes for journeys undertaken in this connection should not be allowed to non-railway servants. |
| 4 | Since in the cases where an employee is charged with ‘inefficiency’, the holding of an enquiry would not arise, a personal hearing to the railway servants would meet the requirements of the case. | Since in most cases of inefficiency, it would be meaningless to hold an enquiry, as there will be no question of recording any evidence etc., the Board have decided that where it is not practicable, no enquiry need be held. |
| 5 | Since the instructions for dealing with the cases of insubordination in the presence of General Managers and Heads of Departments were marked secret, whether a reference to this provision in the Open Letter No.E51 RG6-20, dated 14.04.1952 is really intended. | In the open letter it has only been stated that it will not be necessary to hold an enquiry in cases of insubordination in presence of the G.Ms. and Heads of Departments, among other cases were such an enquiry is not necessary. The procedure for dealing with such cases is contained in the Secret Instructions and therefore, it is not incorrect in including this item also in the Open letter. Further, since an enquiry has been provided in all cases of removal from service, it is necessary to make clear where this provision will not apply. |
| 6 | Since the revised instructions do away with the distinction based on length of service, in the matter of holding an enquiry etc., the distinction of railway servants with less than or who have completed 7 years service in Rule 1704(II) R.I should be done away with. | The Board’s undertaking to the Federation that no distinction will be made based on the length of service is with regard to the application of the disciplinary procedure and has nothing to do with the delegation of powers. Hence no amendment to Rule 1704(ii) R.I is necessary. This point will, however, we borne in mind and looked into when considering the question of the rationalisation of the delegation of powers in regard to Discipline and Appeal Rules on the regrouped railways. |
| 7 | In the open letter it has been stated that the accused employee should be supplied with copies of evidence etc. to enable him to defend his case, but in the Secret Letter it has been stated that the documents etc. should be made available to the accused only after the imposition of the penalty of removal/ dismissal from service. The position may be clarified. | It is the intention of the Board that the documents etc. should be made available to the accused employee to enable him to prefer an appeal against the penalty imposed. The wording in the Open letter will be suitably amended. |
| 8 | Paragraph 4(iii) of the Secret Letter states that in case of illiterate staff, the employee may have the proceedings etc. perused by a literate ‘friend’. Since the term ‘friend’ is too wide, as obviously an outsider should not be permitted the term ‘friend’ may be substituted by ‘a railway servant’. | The term ‘friend’ should be interpreted to mean ‘another railway servant’ or a ‘recognised railway trade union official’. |
| 9 | In view of the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of a petition filed by Shri C. Sambandam, an employee discharged under the provisions of the Security Rules, that the issue whether in a particular case, it is termination within the meaning of Rule 148-R.I or removal from service depends on the circumstances of the case is it Board’s intention that the instructions contained in para 4 and 5 of their letter No.E51 RG6-3, dt. 14.09.1951 should be still followed and if so whether it is necessary to get the class IV staff to execute service agreements. | In this connection attention is invited to the instructions contained in Board’s letter No.E51 RG6-3, dated 09.09.1952. |
| 10 | In para 5(a) of the Secret letter it has been stated that deputy Head of Department would be the appellate authority in cases where the original orders have been made by Sr. Scale (or lower grade) officers. Is it the intention of the Board that the lowest tier at which any appeal will be considered is the level of a Dy. Head of Deptt. and by a Jr. Administrative Officer instead of by a Sr. Scale Officer. | This is intended to be delegation of powers to free G.Ms. and Heads of Departments and not to move up the appellate authorities to a higher level. With a view to clear the position the words ‘or lower grade officers’ will be deleted from this paragraph. |
| 11 | Since the General Managers have to deal with all appeals arising out of orders originally passed by the Heads of Departments, including the grant of personal hearing to appellants, and also pass orders personally on the revision applications, besides passing the original orders of dismissal and removal in the case of ex. company staff, which throw a heavy burden on him the Sr. Deputy General Manager may be delegated powers to deal with appeals preferred against the order of the following minor heads of Departments, viz., (1) the Controller of Stores, (2) Chief Medical Officer, (3) Chief Elec. Engineer, (4) Chief Signal & Tele-communication Engineer, (5) Dy.G.M.(P) and Supdt. W&W. | The Board are not agreeable to this except in the case of Supdt. Watch & Ward. |
| 12 | The note under para 1(b) of the open letter states that the procedure laid down therein will not apply to cases were the Board is the appellate authority. This may be amplified to include cases where the G.M. is the appellate authority. | It is not the intention of the Board that the G.M. should refer to the Tribunal any case in which he is himself the appellate authority. The note under para 1(8) of the Open letter will be amended accordingly. |
| 13 | In the cases referred to the Railway Rates Tribunal for advice, whether the advice to be given by the Tribunal should be the opinion of the President and members together or it can be of any one of them to whom the case may be referred by the President. | The Board consider that the advice given by the Tribunal should be the opinion of the President and Members together. |
Download Railway Board Circular dated 08.04.1953
Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.