05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

644 DECISION - 315<br />

passengers instead of tickets and thereby he defrauded the Railway<br />

Administration, and imposed the penalty of reduction of his pay by<br />

three stages for a period of five years. His appeal was disposed of<br />

by the order, “I do not see reason to change the order.”<br />

The applicant assailed that the order of the disciplinary<br />

authority is vitiated since that authority has assumed the role of<br />

complainant, prosecutor, witness as well as judge. There is also the<br />

plea that a material document was not made available denying him<br />

reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The appellate order<br />

was assailed on the ground that it is a non-speaking order without<br />

adverting to any of the grounds urged in the appeal.<br />

The respondents urged that though the Sr. Divl. Comml.<br />

Supdt. himself is the complainant, he had the right to issue the chargesheet<br />

by virtue of his position as disciplinary authority. In respect of<br />

the non-supply of the document called for, the plea is that the chit on<br />

which the charge was based was returned to the passengers and<br />

hence it could not be made available. The order of the appellate<br />

authority is sought to be supported as having been passed in<br />

accordance with the rules.<br />

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna held that the<br />

disciplinary proceedings, the order of the disciplinary authority<br />

imposing the penalty and that of the appellate authority rejecting the<br />

appeal are all vitiated and cannot be sustained.<br />

The memorandum of charges was issued as a result of the<br />

check conducted by the Sr.Divl.Comml.Supdt. in his capacity as the<br />

Sr. Divl. Comml. Supdt. when it is stated that the alleged irregularity<br />

committed by the applicant was detected. Indeed, it is openly admitted<br />

that he was the complainant. Yet by virtue of his authority as<br />

disciplinary authority, he has issued the memorandum of charges<br />

fully knowing that the imputation relates to an incident within his<br />

personal knowledge, unearthed by him and as such he will have to<br />

play the material role in the inquiry. Actually it did happen like that,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!