RBE No. 57/1991: Inquiry Officer – Disciplinary Procedure

No.E(D&A)91 RG6-32, dated 19.03.1991

Sub: Correct observance of disciplinary procedure.

1.     A copy of judgment delivered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, quashing the orders of removal passed against Smt. Prema Devi, Aya, Medical Department, Diesel Locomotive Works in August, 1980 is sent herewith for being circulated for information and guidance to all concerned. 

2.     It is noticed from the judgment that there are three serious defects in the procedure adopted, which are enumerated below:-

(i)    The articles of charge against Smt. Prema Devi, inter alia, allege that she had used filthy and un-parliamentary language against Dr. Das, DMO. This being the position, Dr. Das becomes an interested party and should not have dealt with the disciplinary case at any stage. He, however, appointed himself as the Inquiry Officer, proceeded with the inquiry and concluded it ex-parte.

(ii)    He also himself all the order of removal against Smt. Prema Devi in August, 1990. These are clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Attention is invited in this connection to Board’s letters No.E(D&A)60 RG6-32, dated 25.01.1961 and E(D&A)76 RG6-42, dated 26.03.1977.

(iii)   The petitioner has made an application to the Chief Personnel Officer in July, 1980 requesting for change of the Inquiry Officer on ground of bias. No action appears to have been taken to deal with this application as outlined in Railway Board’s letter No.E(D&A)70 RG6-14, dated 19.06.1974.

3.     It should be ensured that such defect do not occur on any of the Railway Administrations; in the present DLW case, this has resulted in setting aside of the removal passed in August, 1980 and may involve payment of huge arrears of wages and allowances and other consequential benefits. At appeal/ revision stage also, it should be ensured by the concerned authorities, as well as the Personnel Officers through whom the case may pass, that such defects are promptly noticed and rectified.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad

Judgment dated 29.01.1991 in TA No.1786 of 1987

Filed by Smt. Prema Devi, DLW

1.     The Writ Petition described above is before us under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing of order dated 18/19.08.1980 by which the applicant/ petitioner was removed from service. There is also a prayer to quash the orders dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and review, communicated to the applicant respectively by letters dated 06.11.1980 and 13.03.1981.

2.     The petitioner was working as an Aya in the DLW Hospital at Banarasi when on 19.07.1979, she is alleged to have used filthy and un-parliamentary language against Shi Agarwal, the Head Clerk in the DMO’s office and also about the DMO himself. The DMO at that time was one Dr. Das. For this alleged conduct, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 16/17.11.1979. On her request, Hindi version of all relevant documents was furnished to her on 18.06.1980. Before the petitioner had furnished a written statement in defence of the charge, the DMO Dr. Das appointed himself to be the Inquiry Officer by an order dated 15.07.1980; he fixed 16.07.1980 for enquiry proceedings.

3.     The petitioner made an application on 16.07.1980 to Dr. Das stating, inter-alia, that it was unfair and unjust for Dr. Das to appoint himself as the Inquiry Officer while she has not filed her written statement of defence because she herself has lodged a criminal complaint against Dr. Das on 02.11.1979. It appears that on 02.11.1979, the petitioner lodged a complaint against Dr. Das for offences under Sections 500, 504 & 506 of the IPC in the Court of the concern Magistrate at Varanasi on the allegation that Dr. Das had hurled filthy abuses and had cast aspiration on her character on 20.07.1979. However, Dr. Das proceeded with the enquiry on 16.07.1980 itself and concluded it ex-party.

4.     On 28.07.1980, the petitioner made an application to the Chief Personnel Officer, DLW, Varanasi, stating inter alia, that Dr. Das may not act fairly as an Inquiry Officer and that some independent person may be appointed as an Inquiry Officer. On that very date, she also made a similar application to Dr. Das himself, and submitted her written statement of defence and requested Dr. Das, not to hold the enquiry.

5.     The requests appear to have gone unheeded by the CPO as also by Dr. Das, the Inquiry Officer and ultimately Dr. Das found the petitioner to have been guilty of the charges leveled against her. On that finding, Dr. Das himself passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service which is impugned, Annexure.

6.     A short point has been raised on behalf of the applicant that in view of the history of the case, as indicated above, the entire enquiry is vitiated by the vice of bias. The stand of the respondent was that because disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the petitioner, she chose to lodge the criminal complaint against Dr. Das which was ultimately rejected by the Magistrate although a criminal revision appears to have been filed in the Superior Court. It is urged that the charge against the petitioner was that she had abused Dr. Das himself. Be that   as it may; the fact remains that in respect of the incident which took place on 19.07.1979, the charge sheet had been issued on 16/17.11.1979 while in the meantime the petitioner had lodged the criminal complaint against Dr. Das on 02.11.1979. It is wholly immaterial whether or not the complaint of the petitioner against Dr. Das was truthful. It will also be appreciated that in proof of the charge against the petitioner Dr. Das himself might have been witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Arjun Choubey v. UOI 1984 SC 1356 and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Satya Narayan 1965 SC 1303 on the law of bias. We are satisfied that the holding of enquiry by Dr. Das is initiated by the doctrine of bias and punishment order cannot be sustained. The petition is allowed and the impugned orders of removal of the petitioner from service dated 18/19.08.1980 and further orders dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and review, contained in the Annexures are quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been continued in service and shall be paid arrears of wages and allowances and other consequential benefits in accordance with the law. Parties shall bear their costs.

Download Railway Board Circular RBE No.57/1991

Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.