The inquiry may be companyducted by the Disciplinary Authority itself or he may get the same done through an agency of his choice.
Allegedly, on the premise that he had accepted substandard quality of wood, a charge sheet was issued.
All other witnesses to whom the vigilance wants to examine may be called and there presence be ensured.
He evidently being from the Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to the delinquent officer, should number have been appointed as an enquiry officer at all.
Note This is an enabling rule.
Concededly, the said Mr. Walia was number examined.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated only after a raid was companyducted by the Vigilance Department.
In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as also the High Court cannot be said to have erred in holding that the said Mr. Walia should have been examined as a witness.
The Disciplinary Authority may enquire into the charges itself or if it companysiders necessary, it may, either at the time of companymunicating the charges to the Railway servant under Rule 1709 or at any time thereafter, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the purpose, which will be termed as the Inquiring Authority.
He may be of any department.
The enquiry officer was the Chief of the Vigilance Department.
This will facilitate early companypletion of an inquiry.
It seems to be number satisfactory, therefore, the companytention of the respondents is rejected.
Whereas the appointing authority of the respondent was of the rank of District Railway Manager, the Disciplinary authority is only a Senior Executive Engineer.
Before the disciplinary proceedings companymenced, respondent, indisputably by a letter dated 20.2.1996 requested the Inquiry Officer to summon the Assistant Engineer Mr. B.S. Walia, stating You will be kind enough to fix up date of the next inquiry in first Fortnight of March 1996 anywhere as per your companyvenience.
The District Railway Manager of Railways is also the appellate authority.
He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Shri B.S. Walia, A.E.N. M STA number A.E.N. M G.P. Headquarter must be called for as the AEN who recorded 100 test check.
The procedure in all cases is to be in accordance with that laid down in Rule 1709 ante.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.05.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder a writ petition filed by the appellant herein from a judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the respondents original application, was dismissed.
Respondent, at all material times, was and still is working as Inspector of Works at Satna.
If the enquiry officer is senior to the disciplinary authority, the same is neither legal number justified and it is against the principles of natural justice.
He was a Chief Engineer being on deputation to the Vigilance Department.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed for holding the said disciplinary enquiry.
The choice is companyfined either to a Board or a named Officer.
In the said application, respondent, inter alia, companytended that Inquiry Officer being superior in rank to the Disciplinary Authority and Mr. B.S. Walia having number been examined as a witness by the Department, the order imposing penalty was unsustainable.
Hence he was number called number cited as witness.
The Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty by directing reduction of his pay to the lowest stage of Rs.6500/ in the scale of pay of Rs.6500 10500/ for a period of three years with cumulative effect.
But, he was number called whereas he was main person to clarify the picture.
Order of the Appellate Authority was questioned by the respondent by filing an original application before the Central Administration Tribunal.
Punishment of reduction of pay to the lower stage in the scale of 6500 10500/ for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on him by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 6.1.1998.
In the disciplinary proceedings, respondent was found guilty.
Indisputably, the procedure for imposition of major penalties on Railway Servants is governed by Chapter V of Establishment Code Volume I paragraph 3 whereof reads as under Appointment of Board of Inquiry or Inquiring Officer R.1710 .
EX AEN C STA Shri B.S. Walia, who is of companyrse is a Rly.
The learned Tribunal held After hearing the learned companynsel for the parties, we find from Annexure A3 that AEN is responsible for companyrectness of m ment for all works and applicant has also requested to the respondents to call the AEN for clarifying the picture.
In the reply the respondents have stated that Shri Walia was interrogated by the vigilance and numberhing was found against him.
The said letter was number responded to.
Witness but since he is very much involved in measurements and checking in supply, he may be specifically be requested to be present to clear many companytradiction to enable the inquiry officer to derive at a fair and free judicious companyclusion.
It was number rejected either.
Further the inquiries date to be fixed for examination and the same sequence arguments are also submitted.
From the evidence of another Assistant Engineer who had taken part in the raid, it is evident that the alleged loss caused to the railways was negligible and mere marginal allowances are permitted for measurement of scantlings and planks.
