VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 312
639
dated 13-1-77. By order dated 8-3-77, the General Manager removed
the applicant from service with effect from 18-4-77. The appeal to the
Railway Board was rejected by order dated 15-11-78.
The Tribunal observed that there is lot of force in the
submissions made by the applicant and that it is clear that the
appointment of the second inquiry officer purported to have been
made under rule 10(2) of the rules is a wrong exercise of the
jurisdiction for which the entire disciplinary proceeding has been
vitiated. Furthermore, the applicant contended that from the questions
and answers of the prosecution witnesses it was apparent that the
charges framed were not proved by the prosecution witnesses and
none of them stated that the applicant was caught red-handed with
unlawful possession of railway materials with some bad intention
and thus committed gross offence of mis-conduct, and even the
alleged railway materials could not be identified by these witnesses.
The applicant also contended that the wordings of the chargesheet
that the delinquent officer was “caught red-handed while passing
out of the workshop gate with unlawful possession of railway materials
with some bad intention and thus committed a gross offence of serious
nature” showed the disciplinary authority had a closed mind even at
the stage of framing of charge.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction under rule 10(2) of
Railway Servants (D&A) Rules has been violated by appointing the
Asst. Personnel Officer (W/S) as the new inquiry officer. This power
can be exercised by the disciplinary authority by remitting the matter
to the same inquiry officer for further inquiry for reasons to be recorded
by him. The Tribunal quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings
leaving it open to the authorities to hold a fresh inquiry as per law.
(312)
(A) Charge — dropped and re-issued
Dropping charges initially framed on ground of a