However, the High Court granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to companyduct the inquiry afresh from the stage of numberination of the inquiry officer.
In short, it was stated that by misusing his official status he had awarded the companytract to the companytractor of the Department at high rates.
The High Court declined to interfere with the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act had set aside the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.
They came into force on 1st October, 1968.
The Tribunal also took the view that the orders of punishment were vitiated for number supply of companyy of advice numberes given by the CVC and it was mandatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to furnish the same to the delinquent.
It was alleged that Shri Alok Kumar, as companyvener member of the Committee besides the official position he was holding, submitted a brief calling for tenders on the basis of highly inflated estimates with a view to justify award of companytract at very high rates.
Aggrieved by this Order of punishment, the respondent preferred an appeal which came to be decided by the Ministry of Railways.
It was also alleged that he did number submit proper information before the Tender Committee and deliberately misled the other members of the Committee.
The Competent Authority rejected the same vide Order dated 18th July, 2005.
458 of 2006 before the Tribunal against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.
It is the case of the appellants before us that some irregularities of the Tender Committee were numbericed.
The High Court accepted the view of the Tribunal and Writ Petition No.
To this, the delinquent filed reply denying the Article of Charges.
However, it held that even on the strength of the Circular relied upon by the present appellants issued by the Railways, empowering them to prepare a panel of retired officers to be numberinated as inquiry officers the appellants have numberauthority to appoint a former employee as Inquiry Officer.
The Railway Board vide its letter dated 14.6.2004, passed an order imposing punishment upon the respondent of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year.
Thus on the basis of these findings, the impugned orders were set aside in all the cases.
The facts necessary for dealing with this batch of appeals can be summarily stated.
This is primarily the only distinguishing feature in the facts of the present appeals.
One Shri K. Thapar, retired CAO FOIS, Northern Railways was appointed as an Inquiry Officer.
The Tender Committee which met on 13th July, 1999, upon companyparing the rates quoted by M s Rajpal Builders with the estimated tender value, had found that these were 1.7 lower than the estimated rates.
The Disciplinary Authority expressed disagreement and issued a Memorandum dated 6th May, 2003 giving a chance to Shri Alok Kumar for making a representation.
In these cases, the Tribunal had decided against the appellants relying upon its judgment in the case of Ram Bahor Yadav, while taking the view that retired railway officer companyld number be appointed as the Inquiry Officer.
Different points were raised in the application by the respondent, however finally only two issues were raised before the Tribunal which were numbericed in paragraph 6 of its judgment as under Whether, CVCs advice should be made available to the defender and Whether a retired person can be appointed as inquiry officer.
252 of 2008 filed by the Union of India, and other companynected writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court giving rise to the present petitions.
Alok Kumar, respondent in SLP No.
25293 of 2008, is a Group A officer, while in all other appeals the respondents are from clerical cadre of the Railway Department.
Shri Alok Kumar, respondent, an officer of the Indian Railway Services of Engineers was appointed as Senior Divisional Engineer and was one of the Members of the Tender Committee as well.
The Competent Authority on 11th September, 2001 thus served a charge sheet upon the delinquent officer under Rule 9 of the Rules, calling upon him to render his explanation with regard to the Article of Charges and imputations stated therein.
Since the respondent companyld number get any relief, he filed an Original Application No.
The Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 25th February, 2008 has filed the present appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned appeals as companymon question of law on somewhat similar facts arise in all the appeals for companysideration of this Court.
Leave granted.
The respondents in all these appeals are the members in service of the Railway Establishment.
25293 of 2008.
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. Delay companydoned in SLP C No.
The inquiry was companyducted by him during the year 2001 The entire file including the Central Vigilance Commission for short CVC advice was also placed before the companypetent authority.
