CHAPTER VIII

RELEVANT ASPECTS OF RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES,

1968 FOR VIGILANCE WORK

801. Application of Discipline & Appeal Rules:

801.1 As defined in Rules 3 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, these
rules are applicable to all railway servants except:

(a) any member of the All India Services;

(b) any member of the Railway Protection Forces;

(c) any person in casual employment; and

(d) any other person as defined in Rule 3(1) (d) of Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968.

801.2 Notwithstanding anything noted above, the President may, by order, exclude any class
of railway servants from the operation of all or any of these rules.

802. Appointing Authority:

802.1 “Appointing Authority” in relation to a railway servant is the highest authority as

defined in Rule 2 (1) (a) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Note – The most important point is that, the appointing authority is the highest of the
four alternatives given in Rule 2(1)(a) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968. If
the authority, which actually appointed him is higher than the authority who is now
competent to appoint him, then the authority who actually appointed him is the
“Appointing Authority” in his case. Similarly, if the authority competent to appoint him
at the time of passing the orders is higher than the authority which actually appointed
him then the former would be “Appointing Authority” in his case. The gist of the
instructions contained in Board’s letter No. E(D&A)/2002/RG-6-36 dated 25.11.2002
may also be referred to.

802.2 General instructions as laid down in the Establishment Codes of Railways should be
observed while issuing appointment order by the competent authority. In no case should
the appointment orders be issued by an officer higher than the appointing authority.

802.3 Railway administration should notify a ‘Schedule of Power’ which should clearly
specify the authorities, authorised to make appointments in respect of each grade /
category of staff.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A)2002/RG-6-36 dated 02/09/2003)

77
 Clarification : Appointing authority in the event of missing records- Wherever no
records of appointment letters are available to indicate the actual Appointing Authority
in the case of non- gazetted staff, the General Manager should be treated as the
Appointing Authority.

{Board’s circular No. E(D&A) 63/RG 6-23 dated 21-2-64}

803. Disciplinary Authority:

“Disciplinary Authority” is defined in Rule 2(1)(c) of Railway Servants (Discipline &

Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Note. – The “Disciplinary Authority” is to be determined with reference to the post

held by the accused at the time when the disciplinary proceedings for imposition of any
of the penalties, defined in Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal)
Rules, 1968 – are to be initiated as also nature of penalty to be imposed and not in
relation to the post held by him at the time when the misconduct occurred. The
President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 of the Railway Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

804. Railway Servant:

“Railway Servant” is defined in Clause 43 of Rule 103 of Indian Railway

Establishment Code, Volume I - Fifth Edition, 1985 (Second Reprint Edition, 2003).

805. Inquiry Authority:

“Inquiring Authority” is the authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to

inquire into the charges against a railway servant in terms of Rule 9 (2) of Railway
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

806. Protection of rights and privileges conferred by any law or agreement:

No provision of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 shall operate to
deprive any railway servant of any right or privilege to which he is entitled :-

(a) by or under any law for the time being in force;

(b) by the terms of any agreement subsisting between such person and the President
at the commencement of those rules.

PENALTIES

807. Penalties under Discipline & Appeal Rules:

Penalties given in Rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, read
with its proviso and explanations, that can be imposed on a railway servant are given
below for ready reference.

78
 MINOR PENALTIES

(i) Censure;
(ii) Withholding of promotion for a specified period;
(iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by the
railway servant to the Government or Railway Administration by negligence or
breach of orders;
(iii-a)Withholding of the Privilege Passes or Privilege Ticket Orders or both;

(iii-b)Reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not
exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting
railway servant’s pension.
(iv) Withholding of increments of pay for a specified period with further direction as
to whether on the expiry of such period this will or will not have the effect of
postponing the future increments of railway servant’s pay;

The penalties me ntioned in (ii), (iii), (iii-b) & (iv) will be considered as
stiff/severe minor penalties.

MAJOR PENALTIES

(v) Save as provided in Clause (iii-b), reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of
pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether on the expiry of
such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future
increments of railway servant’s pay;

(vi) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service, with or without
further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or
service from which the Railway servant was reduced and the seniority and pay on
such restoration to that grade, post or service;

(vii) Compulsory retirement;

(viii) Removal from service; and

(ix) Dismissal from service.

The penalties mentioned against (vii), (viii) & (ix) will be considered as stiff
major penalties and will be imposed only by the appointing authority or higher
authority.

Explanations :

(1) Administrative action not amounting to penalties- Some actions listed in

Explanation to Rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
not amounting to penalties may be referred to.

79
 (2) In terms of sub rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1968, minor penalty of withho lding of increment (s) with cumulative
effect, or any of the minor penalties affecting the pension of the employee, should
not be imposed unless an inquiry is held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (6)
to (25) of Rule 9.

808. Procedure for imposition of minor penalties:

The procedure laid down in Rule 11 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1968 would be observed while dealing with cases of minor penalties.

SUBSIDIARY INSTRUCTIONS

1. Time limit for submission of explanation etc. - Where the disciplinary

proceedings are initiated under Rule 9 (7) of Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968, the accused railway servant (in cases where photocopies of
the documents relied upon have been delivered to the accused railway servant
alongwith the charge-sheet) shall be required to submit a written statement of his
defence within ten days or such further time as the disciplinary authority may
allow.

Note :- If copies of documents have not been delivered to the Railway servant along
with the articles of charges and if he desires to inspect the same for the
preparation of his defence, he may do so, within 10 days from the date of receipt
of the articles of charge s by him and complete inspection within ten days
thereafter and shall state whether he desires to be heard in person.

{Rule 9(7) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968}

2. Authority competent to sign the charge-sheet - The Memo for initiation of

disciplinary proceedings (for imposition of minor and/or major penalty) should be
issued under the signature of a disciplinary authority as defined in Rule 2(1) (c)
read with Rule 8 (2) and Rule 26-A of the Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968.

3. Imposition of ‘Minor’ penalty where charge-sheet for imposition of ‘Major’

penalty is issued - Provision contained in Rule 9 (9) (a) (iv) of the Railway
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 would be observed in such cases.

4. Authority competent to issue charge-sheet - The authorities competent to

institute disciplinary proceedings against different categories of railway servants
are given in Schedules I, II and III of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1968. For determining the authority competent to initiate disciplinary
proceedings, provision of Rule 2 (1) (c) read with Rule 8 (2) and Rule 26-A of the
Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 be observed.

80
 5. Routing of charge sheet through PHOD - Charge sheet is after all the end
product of a vigilance investigation when after a careful examination and critical
evaluation of all the facts, a conclusion is drawn about the requisite action to be
taken against any particular officer. Invariably, this exercise is done with full
involvement of all the concerned officers like SDGM, PHODs, GMs, as the case
may be, in the Railway and with due consideration and deliberation at the level of
Board and CVC. Thus, thereafter the charge sheet is a statement of facts of the
case put in a proper format. There is, therefore, no necessity for routing the draft
charge sheet once again through PHODs as it causes avoidable delays.

In vigilance cases, after receipt of the defence reply, the personnel department
should route the charge-sheet through the SDGM who will put up to the GM with
Vigilance comments. In case, the DA(GM) wants to take the opinion of PHOD,
he may seek his views but as a matter of practice, the charge sheet should not be
routed through the PHODs. Likewise, it is not necessary to serve the charge-sheet
through the PHODs.

(Board’s letter No.97/V-I/DAR/1/3 dated 24.12.97)

6. Common proceedings - Where two or more Railway servants are concerned in
any case, a common proceedings is preferable as it would result in quicker
disposal of the case and avoid the possibility of a charge failing by each accused
throwing the blame on the other, besides precluding the possibility of conflicting
findings being given by different Inquiry Officers.

809. Withholding of increments:

In ordering the withholding of increment (s) as a result of disciplinary proceedings, the
authority passing the order shall state the period for which the increment (s) is/are to be
withheld and whether or not it shall have the effect of postponing future increments.

SUBSIDIARY INSTRUCTIONS

Withholding of increments with the effect of postponing future increments - The

disciplinary authority, while awarding the penalty of withholding of increments with
the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay, should keep in view the
implications about the financial loss to the accused Railway servant.

{Board’s letter No. E(D&A)64RG-17 dated 20-5-64}

810. Withholding of Privilege Passes and PTOs:

In ordering withholding of Passes and PTOs the authority passing the order shall bear
in mind that with a view to making such a punishment effective, the pena lty of
withholding Passes and PTOs may be imposed in terms of sets viz., one set or two sets
in a calendar year instead of for a specific period.

81
811. Penalty of recovery from pay of loss caused to Government in addition to another
penalty:
In cases of the type where loss of Station Earnings is caused as a result of negligence
and carelessness on the part of the Station Master, it would be open to the competent
authority to inflict in addition to the penalty of recovery from pay of the loss caused to
Government by negligence or breach of orders, any one of penalties specified in clauses
(i), (ii), (iii-a), (iii-b), (iv), (v) and (vi) of Rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968 by way of one and the same order and in pursuance of one and the
same proceedings. This does not amount to a double penalty.

{Board’s letter No. E (D&A) 62 REG-26 dated 17-5-1962}

MAJOR PENALTIES

812. Framing of charge and calling for written statement of defence:

The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations
on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together with a statement of
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which they are based shall be
communicated in writing, in the prescribed form, to the railway servant, and he shall be
required to submit within 10 days to such authority a written statement of defence; and
if he requires to inspect any documents, within 10 days after completion of the
inspection of documents and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.

SUBSIDIARY INSTRUCTIONS

1. Collection of records - The authority framing the charges for imposing major
penalty should take steps to collect all records relevant for the purposes of inquiry
even at the time of framing the charges and keep them in its custody so that access
thereto may be given readily if such a request is made by the defendant official.

{Board’s letter No. E(D&A)62RG6-8 dated 27-7-1963}

2. Time limit for completion of inspection of documents and submission of

written statement of defence - The dates by which the defendant official should,
if he so desires, complete the inspection of documents, and submit his written
statement of defence, should be specified in the memorandum. The time to be
allowed for each of these items would be governed by the provisions contained in
Rule 9(7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

3. Case not to be remitted to a lower disciplinary authority in case proceedings

are instituted by a higher disciplinary authority - Where proceedings are
instituted by a “higher disciplinary authority”, further processing of the case shall
continue to be done by that authority till final orders in the proceedings instituted
by it are passed or the case is remitted by it to the next higher competent
disciplinary authority with its recommendation on the ground that it is not

82
 competent to impose a penalty which it, after considering the inquiry proceedings,
feels should be imposed.

Under no circumstances, the case, where disciplinary proceeding have been

instituted by a higher disciplinary authority should be remitted to the lower
disciplinary authority for further processing and/or passing of any order even on
the grounds that on merits of the case, it is sufficient to impose a minor penalty
and such lower authority is competent to impose that penalty. In such cases the
appeal against the punishment order of the “higher disciplinary authority” shall lie
to the authority prescribed in the Schedules of disciplinary powers appended to
the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Note:- If in a case, instituted by a lower disciplinary authority, a higher disciplinary

authority steps in and passes any intermediary order on such disciplinary
proceedings, further processing of the case shall be pursued by that higher
authority till the conclusion of the proceedings in the same manner as if the
proceedings had been instituted by it.

{Board’s letter No.E(D&A)/62/RG 6-8 dated 27-7-1963}

4. Permission to be granted to the Railway servant / trade union official

assisting the accused official - The Railway servant/trade union official
permitted to assist the accused official should be permitted to examine, cross-
examine and re-examine witnesses and make submissions before the Inquiry
Officer on behalf of the accused official.

813. Procedure for imposition of major penalties:

Penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968 shall be imposed only after an oral inquiry has been held in the
manner prescribed in Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1968.

Clarification

(1) Clarification of the words “Administrative Ground” occurring in

Explanation No. (iv) under Rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Reversion may take place for reasons of extraneous
circumstances like revision of cadres, transfers of more senior men from other
units, revision of seniority lists, abolition of posts etc. It is these extraneous
circumstances that broadly constitute the “Administrative grounds” on which
reversion may take place otherwise than by way of imposition of the penalty of
reduction in rank.

{Board’s letter No.E(D&A) 62RG6-24 dated 26-6-1962}

83
814. Administrative action:
(a) Warning - Power to Administer - Administration of ‘Warning’ is not a
recognised penalty under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. It is an administrative
action by which a superior authority expresses his criticism and disapproval of the
work/conduct of the person warned and is designed to point out the defects noted
with a view to enabling that person to make an effort to remedy them. The
warning may be administered verbally or in writing (depending on the
circumstances of each case), as the competent authority may decide.
It would follow that any superior authority has the power to administer a warning
to an official subordinate to it. It is, however, desirable that the authority
administering the warning is not normally one lower than that which initiates the
Confidential Report on the official so warned.
(b) Recorded Warning - Procedure for Administration - In a case where the
competent authority decides to administer a written warning and a copy thereof is
proposed to be placed on the person’s Confidential Report, it is only fair that the
person concerned is given a chance to explain the reasons, if any, which led him
to do the acts of omission or commission disapproved of. Further action to
administer the warning may be taken only after the reply of the railway servant
concerned is considered by the competent authority but not found acceptable. The
railway servant concerned has also a right to represent against an order of
recorded warning.
Board’s letters No. 2004/V-1/DAR/1/3 dated 16.8.2004 and No. 2005/V-
1/DAR/1/3 dated 6-10-2005)
(c) Warning after Disciplinary Proceedings - Where disciplinary proceedings have
been initiated, “Warning” should not be issued as a result of such proceedings. If
it is found, as a result of the proceedings, that some blame attaches to the Railway
servant, at least the penalty of “censure” should be imposed.
{Board’s letter No.E (D&A) 92 RG6-149 (A) dated 21-1-1993}
(d) Other warnings - Warnings are also administered as a result of preliminary
investigation/enquiries into allegations of irregularities initiated with a view to
determine whether regular disciplinary proceedings should be started against any
person or persons. If the disciplinary authority is satisfied that the enquiry
revealed no cause for instituting regular disciplinary proceedings, ‘Warning’ may
be administered to the accused, in consultation with the Central Vigilance
Commission in the case of gazetted officers and in consultation with the CVO of
the unit in the case of non- gazetted officials.
815. Instructions for placing of warnings/displeasure etc. in the CR/Personal file:

The following instructions should be borne in mind and followed while recording or
placing warnings on the CR/Personal file.

84
(a) Warning - A warning may be either oral or written; where warning is oral there is
no need of mentioning it in the Confidential Report Files etc., of the official. A
written warning may be either recorded or unrecorded in the Confidential Report
File. Warning is recorded in the CR file only when the competent disciplinary
authority specifically decides it to be so for good and sufficient reasons but before
a recorded warning is administered, it is necessary that the official concerned had
been given an opportunity to explain the lapses for which the warning is
administered. If, however, the warning is intended to be unrecorded, though
written, the communication should not obviously, be mentioned by the reporting
officer in the CR files unless such a mention is really necessary for a truly
objective assessment of the official’s work.

(b) Conveying displeasure - This, like warning, is an action of a corrective nature

to be resorted to when the lapse on the part of the official is such that it may be
considered necessary to convey to the official the sense of displeasure over it but
is not serious enough for administering a warning. Such displeasure is actually
communicated in the form of a letter and a copy of it may, if so decided, be
placed on the Character Roll of the official. Therefore, on the question whether
displeasure should be recorded or not, the criterion can be the same as that for
recorded warning.

(c) Bringing lapses and short-comings to the notice of the official, admonishing,
cautioning, counselling, etc. - The above mentioned actions also have no penal
element in that they are intended to assist the official concerned to correct his
faults and deficiencies. These are, therefore, not to be recorded in the confidential
report of the official. There should scarcely be any occasion for the reporting
officer also to refer to these in the CRs, unless the reporting officer considers it
absolutely necessary for a truly objective assessment However, if any of the
above actions has to be mentioned in the character roll of the officer, it should be
done after issuance of a show cause notice; otherwise there is no necessity of
issuing show cause notice. The employee would be entitled to represent against
such administrative action. The format for issuing memorandum of
admonishing/counselling/ cautioning/ warning (as the case may be) is circulated
to the Railways vide Board’s letter No.2004/V-1/DAR/1/3 dated 16.8.2004.

{Board’s letter No. E (D&A) 77RG-20 dated 10-5-77, 2004/V-1/ DAR/1/3 dated
16.8.2004 and 2005/V-1/DAR/1/3 dated 6-10-2005)}

Note:- Regarding issuing of a warning/recorded warning after the conclusion of

disciplinary proceedings, provisions contained in paras 814 (c) and 815 (a) of this
Manual may be kept in view by the competent disciplinary authority. Instructions
issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) vide their letters No. E
(D&A) 92 RG6 - 149 (A) dated 21-01-1993 and No. E (D&A) 92 RG6 - 149 (B)
dated 21-01-1993 may be referred to.

85
816. Appointment of Board of Inquiry or Inquiry Officer:

Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for
inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a
railway servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under Rule 9 of the Railway
Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiry Officer.

SUBSIDIARY INSTRUCTIONS

1. Authority competent to conduct Departmental Inquiry:

(a) With a view to avoid the possibility of the Enquiry Officer being influenced
by the findings of the superior authority, departmental enquiries for
disciplinary action should not, except in cases arising out of the fact-finding
enquiries like accident enquiries, enquiries consequent to audit reports,
reports from the SPE/CBI and enquiries made by Vigilance Organisation,
be entrusted to an officer lower in status than that of the officer who
conducted the fact- finding enquiry.

{Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 62 RG6-19 dated 10-4-1962 and E(D&A) 60

RG 6-31 dated 15.6.1970)

(b) Appointment of witnesses as IO/Association with disposal of enquiry

proceedings - An officer who has to give evidence at a departmental
enquiry should not be nominated as a member of the enquiry committee or
associated with the disposal of the proceedings of that committee.

{Board’s letter No. 65-Vig.I/I/93 dated 18-8-1965}

2. Status of enquiry officer:

(a) As long as there is no bias attaching to the enquiry officer approved by the
Disciplinary Authority, the rank and status of the enquiry officer vis-a-vis
the Disciplinary Authority will not count in the eyes of the law. There is no
objection to the nomination of an officer of the same or lower status as
enquiry officer whose function is exclusively to conduct the enquiry. The
appointment of the Enquiry Officer has however to be made with reference
to the status of the charged official.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 78 RG6-75 dated 31-7-79)

(b) The status of CDI of the CVC vis-à-vis the charged official is immaterial
because he belongs to an independent organisation outside the department of
the charged official.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 2000 RG6-24 dated 20.2.2001)

86
 3. Conduct of oral inquiries:

In all cases pertaining to Gazetted Officers in respect of whom CVC is required to

be consulted or in any other case in which disciplinary proceedings for imposing a
major penalty have been initiated on the advice of the CVC, the inquiry will be
entrusted to the Commissioners of Departmental Inquiries (CDI) nominated by
the Central Vigilance Commission. In cases where Non-Gazetted Officers are
involved alongwith Gazetted Officer (s), the oral inquiries will be entrusted to the
same CDI who has been nominated by the Central Vigilance Commission to hold
inquiry in respect of the co-accused Gazetted Officer excepting only those cases
where the Central Vigilance Commission have specifically permitted for
appointment of another Inquiry Officer.

4. Preparation of Panel for RIOs:

The panel for Railway Inquiry Officers (RIOs) is prepared by the Railway Board
on the basis of the recommendations received from the Zonal Railways and other
Railway Units from amongst the SAG and Selection Grade Officers who have
clean vigilance record. To apprise these officers of the procedures for holding
inquiry, training is imparted to them.
5. Empanelment of retired Railway officers of various grades for their
subsequent appointment as Inquiry Officers in DAR cases, arising out of
vigilance investigations:

In the interest of expeditious finalisation of the departmental inquiries, arising out

of vigilance investigations, retired Railway officers upto Group ‘B’ gazetted are
empanelled for their subsequent appointment as Inquiry Officers for conducting
departmental inquiries involving gazetted railway officers or a combination of
gazetted and non-gazetted railway officials. Their services with respect to such
appointments are governed by the terms and conditions laid down vide Boards’
letters No.94/V-1/CVC/1/1 dated 28/12/1994, No.98/V-1/Retd/RIO/NGO/3 dated
29/07/1998 and No. 2002/V-1/DAR/2/1 dated 18.6.2002, as modified from time
to time.

6. Rate of Honorarium to be paid to various types of IOs and their supporting

staff and the POs in CVC’s /non-CVC cases:
Serving railway officers as well as retired railway officers may be appointed as
Inquiry Officers in Disciplinary & Appeal cases against Railway officers/staff,
arising as a result of Vigilance investigations. The rate of honoraria to be paid to
them will be as per extant instructions issued from time to time.

817. Permission to inspect official records:

The provisions contained in Rule 9(7) and 9 (8) of the Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968, shall be observed in this respect.

87
818. Inquiry Procedure:

818.1 In a case where the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the written statement of
defence of the accused Railway servant, decides to proceed with the inquiry, provisions
contained in Rule 9 (9) to 9 (25) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968 shall be observed for further processing of the disciplinary case.

818.2 Important points which are to be observed in disciplinary proceedings by the inquiry
committee/inquiry officer are given in Chapter IX of this Manual.

SUBSIDIARY INSTRUCTIONS

(1) Stage at which the IO should be appointed – The Inquiring Authority should be
appointed only after the receipt of defence statement or after time allowed for
such submission has lapsed. Appointment of Inquiring Authority before the
receipt of defence statement or time allowed for the submission of such defence
statement is an irregularity and may vitiate the proceedings. The accused officer
can allege that the Disciplinary Authority had prejudged the issue.

(2) Warning against false evidence – At the start of the proceedings, all the
witnesses should be reminded that they render themselves liable to severe
disciplinary action if they give false evidence.
(3) Nomination of “Defence Helper” – “Law Assistants” who are entitled to act as
legal practitioners are debarred from acting as defence helper. If any Law
Assistant does not appear or plead before any Court/Tribunal on behalf of the
Railway Administration, but only assists the Railway Advocate at the time of
hearing, he may act as Defence Helper.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 59RG7-10 dated 26-11-1959 and E(D&A) 89 RG6-
132 dated 10.1.90)

(4) Principles of natural justice to be followed in departmental enquiries – A

departmental enquiry need not be carried out strictly in accordance with the rules
applicable to judicial proceedings but the principles of natural justice should be
followed. An extract from a Supreme Court judgement wherein the term
“principles of natural justice” has been broadly defined is given below :-

(Board’s letter No. E (D & A) 62 RG6 – 37 dated 2-8-1962)

Extract from the judgement of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1957:

“Stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed

that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of

88
adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the
opponent should be taken in his presence and that he should be given the
opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by the party, and that no
materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity
of explaining them.”
(Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 55RG6-2 dated 20-7-1959)

Some more examples on reasonable opportunity and natural justice are given
below:-

(a) Example of natural justice

Natural justice does not supplement any law or rule. It is only

supplementary. Secondly, rules of natural justice are generally referred to by
or on behalf of defence. They should in all fairness apply to both the parties.

(b) Natural justice does not mean fundamental rights

The rules of natural justice cannot be elevated to the position of fundamental

rights. Their aim is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent
miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas governed by
any law validly made. This is the view taken by the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India vs J. N. Sinha and others (AIR 1971 SC 40). Since
the disciplinary rules contain clear provisions about the conduct of Inquiries
at various stages, the rules of natural justice cannot be invoked for going
beyond or round the scope of the rules at any stage. In the case of A. K. Das
vs. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices (AIR 1969, A & N 99) it has been
held that if the procedure laid down in the CCS (CCA) rules is complied
with, there can be no complaint of violation of natural justice.

(c) Principals of Natural justice

(i) Natural justice is not defined in any rules but the concept is fairly
crystalised through judicial pronouncements and covers three
important principles:

(a) right of either of the party to be heard;

(b) no person can be judge in his own cause; and

(c) justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done

In other words, where there are no specific provisions in the rules and
procedures, either party has a right to “fair hearing”, “unbiased
judgement” and “clear speaking order”.

89
 (ii) The Madras High Court in Gabriel vs. State of Madras has succinctly
set out the requirements of an oral enquiry in the following terms :

“All enquiries, judicial, departmental or other into the conduct of

individuals must conform to certain standards. One is that the person
proceeded against must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to
defend himself. Another is that the person charged with the duty of
holding the enquiry must discharge that duty, without bias and
certainly without vindictiveness. He must conduct himself objectively
and dispassionately not merely during the procedural stages of
enquiry, but also in dealing with the evidence and the material on
record when drawing up the final order. A further requirement is that
the conclusion must be rested on the evidence and not on matters
outside the record. And, when it is said that conclusion must be rested
on the evidence, it goes without saying that it must not be based on the
misreading of the evidence. These requirements are basic and cannot
be whittled down, whatever be the nature of the inquiry, whether it be
judicial, departmental or other.”

[(1959) 2 M.L.J. 15]

(d) Scope of argument by the IO during the Enquiry Proceedings

There has been an argument whether IO should interrupt during the hearing
or even argue while the proceedings are on and whether this constitutes
violation of natural justice. It is not correct to conclude that every
interve ntion or argument or even a hostile remark of an IO is indicative of
bias. As Supreme Court has construed as indicating prejudice, “I am afraid
most judges will fail to pass the exacting test”. In the course of an argument,
a judge sometimes expresses his opinion, tentatively formed, sometimes
even strongly worded, but that does not always mean that the case has been
prejudiced. An argument in a court can never be effective if the judges do
not sometimes point out what appears to be an underlying fallacy in the
apparent plausibility thereof; and every lawyer or litigant who forms an
apprehension on that score cannot be said to reasonably doing so
(Viswanathan vs. Abdul Vazid AIR 1936 SCI).

(e) Impartiality of the E.O.

In Darbari Ram Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, a Sub-Inspector of Police

had sent a notice to the Government under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure
Code, alleging that he had not been properly treated by the Superintendent
of Police on a particular date during the enquiry and that the behaviour of
the officer present amounted to defamation. Charges were framed
subsequently against the Sub-Inspector for sending the notice and the

90
 Superintendent of Police himself investigated the charges and tried the case.
The Allahabad High Court held that it was against the principles of natural
justice that the Superintendent of police should have tried the case himself
and investigated the charges. The order passed by him was set aside.

(AIR 1959 SC 1376)

(f) IO cannot add to evidence

In Ausutosh Das vs. State of West Bengal, it was held that in a departmental
enquiry, the Inquiring Authority cannot rely on his own evidence. This is
contrary to the rules of natural justice as Inquiring Authority cannot both be
a judge and a witness.

(AIR 1956 Cal 278)

(g) Rules of natural justice require

(i) that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant
evidence on which he relies;

(ii) that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence;

(iii) that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the

witnesses examined by that party; and

(iv) that no material should be relied against him without his being given
an opportunity of explaining them.

(Union of India vs. T.R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 882)

(5) Examination of the accused officer

(a) The accused Government servant has also the right to examine himself as a
witness. If he does not avail himself of this provision, a duty is cast on the
Inquiring Authority to question him generally. Failure to observe this
provision shall vitiate the enquiry. It is not necessary for the Inquiring
Authority to question the accused officer on every single incriminating piece
of evidence placed on record during the enquiry. The accused has had
adequate knowledge of the facts aga inst him from the depositions of the
witnesses and through the arguments for defence. He also puts in a written
brief dealing with his case. It would be sufficient for the Inquiring Authority
generally to question him on the circumstances appearing against him,
particularly on any point, which in view of the Inquiring Authority, requires
clarification.

91
 (b) While deposing as a witness in his defence or answering the questions of
Inquiring Authority [under Rule 9 (21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules, 1968], the accused is not allowed to consult his Assisting
Officer.

(6) Relevancy of character in Departmental Proceedings – Character of the

accused is normally not relevant during the disciplinary enquiry, unless the same
is the subject matter of enquiry, and the prosecution should not comment on the
same. But, however if the accused brings in his “good character” during the
enquiry, the prosecution cannot be prevented from commenting on the same, or
adducing material which may be complimentary to him.

(7) Relieving of a Railway servant for assisting the accused Railway servant – A
Railway servant shall be relieved to assist another Railway servant at an enquiry
only on receipt of a letter of consent from him agreeing to assist another employee
in his defence and if it is possible to spare him from his departmental duties for
the required period.
(8) Treating of additional persons as accused during the course of an enquiry –
If during the course of an enquiry, it is found that prima facie evidence exists
against any other persons not already treated as accused, it is preferable to hold
another enquiry on them at a later stage, so as not to delay matters, but if it is
considered more convenient, the Board of Inquiry or the Inquiry Officer should
immediately report the matter to the competent authority for necessary orders.

Note:- The clarifications on leave facilities, Passes, TA to the accused Railway servant
and their defence counsel for inspection of documents and attendance before the
inquiring authority are contained in Annexure VIII/1.

(9) Collection of evidence

(a) An enquiry in which the delinquent officer is examined at the very

commencement of it and thereafter several times as and when the evidence
of witnesses is recorded, cannot be held to be a fair enquiry.
(b) Relying on the evidence of witness who was not examined during the oral
enquiry on the ground that his relations with the accused were cordial and
hence his statement was not made “Out of Prejudice”, is wholly wrong in
principles.
(c) Disciplinary authority basing his decision inter-alia on the evidence of a
witness not examined during oral enquiry amounts clearly to denial to the
accused of reasonable opportunity of defence.
(Ramshakal Yadav vs. Chief Security Officer, R.P.F., Bombay, AIR 1967
M.P. 91).

92
(10) Ex-parte proceedings

(a) If the Government servant to whom a copy of the articles of charge s has
been delivered does not submit the written statement of defence on or before
the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the
Inquiring Authority, the Inquiring Authority may hold the enquiry ex-parte.
The notices of all hearings should be served on the accused or
communicated to him unless the first notice says that the enquiry will
continue from day-to-day. In ex-parte proceedings, the entire gamut of the
enquiry has to be gone through. The notices to witnesses should be sent, the
documentary evidence should be produced and marked, the Presenting
Officer should examine the Prosecution Witnesses and Inquiring Authority
may put such questions to the witnesses as he thinks fit. The Inquiring
Authority should record the reasons why he is proceeding ex-parte and what
steps he had taken to ask the accused officer to take part in the enquiry. In
such a case the details of what has transpired in his absence, including
depositions, may be furnished to the accused officer. During the course of
enquiry, the accused is free to put in an appearance and participate in the
enquiry. If the accused appears in the enquiry when some business has
already been transacted, it is not necessary to transact the same business
again unless the accused officer is able to give justification to the
satisfaction of the Inquiring Authority for not participating in the enquiry
earlier.

(b) If the accused Government Servant has refused to take part in the enquiry
unless he has inspected all the documents, the enquiry should not proceed
ex-parte. The Supreme Court in Trilok Nath vs. Union of India has held that
insistence on inspection of relevant documents before taking part in the oral
enquiry does not amount to refusal to participate in the enquiry. If, however,
the accused does not take part in the enquiry because the Inquiring
Authority has not called for all the additional documents asked for by the
accused, the Inquiring Authority may proceed ex-parte, after recording the
reasons for not calling those documents.

(CA No. 322 of 1957)

(c) If a Government Servant under suspension is short of funds on account of

non-payment of subsistence allowance and if he cannot attend the enquiry,
ex-parte proceedings are vitiated.

(Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava vs. State of M.P., AIR 1973 SC 1183)

(11) Dealing with case arising out of Rule 14 (i)

The word ‘consider’ in Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal)
Rules, 1968, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 to 13 means :-

93
 (i) Where any penalty is imposed on a railway servant on the ground of conduct
which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority
may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as
it deems fit, connotes that there should be active application of the mind by
the disciplinary authority after considering the entire circumstances of the
case in order to decide the nature/extent of the penalty to be imposed on the
delinque nt employee on his conviction on a criminal charge. This matter can
be objectively determined only if the delinquent employee is heard and is
given a chance to satisfy the authority recording the final orders that may be
passed. Such an enquiry would, however, be a summary enquiry to be held
by the disciplinary authority. The provisions of Rule 14 merely import a rule
of natural justice in enjoining that before taking final action in the matter the
delinquent employee should be heard. This is in keeping with the scope of
natural justice and fair play.

(Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway vs. T.R. Challappan AIR

1975 SC 2216)

(12) Interference by Courts

(a) Courts do not generally question the quantum of punishment so long as the
rules of natural justice have been observed and reasonable opportunity given
to the charged official.

(b) Court can question decisions of domestic tribunals only on certain specific
grounds, namely, where -

(i) bias or bad faith is present;

(ii) principles of natural justice / reasonable opportunity are violated;

(iii) jurisdiction under rules regulating duties and procedure of tribunals is

exceeded.

(Nani Gopal Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1966 Cal 42)

(13) Supply of copies of statement of witnesses during preliminary inquiry

(a) The accused government servant is entitled to receive copies of the

statement made by witnesses during preliminary enquiry provided:-

(i) such witnesses are examined at the oral enquiry, and

(ii) the Government Servant specifically asks for them.

94
 (b) The Government Servant is not entitled to demand copies of statements of
every witness examined at the preliminary enquiry, no matter whether he is
or is not examined subsequently at the departmental enquiry.

(Prabhakar Narayan Menjoge vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,

AIR 1967 Madhya Pradesh 215)

(14) Applicability of Indian Evidence Act and Cr.P.C.

The provisions of the Ind ian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code are
not applicable in departmental enquiries, but since the provisions of these
enactments are based on the principles of natural justice, they have to be followed
in the conduct of departmental proceedings though not as meticulously as in the
Courts of Law. The Inquiring Authority is free to depart from them but it must
conform to the principles of natural justice, the guiding factor being that the
accused officer should have a reasonable opportunity of defe nding himself. As an
Inquiring Authority, he is not subject to the orders or instructions of his superiors
in the administrative hierarchy in which he is placed. As a quasi- judicial
authority, the Inquiry Authority is amendable to the writs of certiorari and
prohibition. A person aggrieved by the findings of the Inquiring Authority can
also go to the Supreme Court by Special Leave to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

(15) Inspection of documents

(a) In the case of K.N. Gupta vs. Union of India, the petitioner contended that
he had a right to be supplied with copies of various documents which he had
asked for and the failure to furnish him with copies of such documents
constituted a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend
himself. The High Court said :

“The petitioner was given permission to inspect the documents and to take
extracts from them. If the petitioner wanted to take copies of any of the
documents made available to him for inspection, there was nothing to
prevent him from doing so. It is not the case of the petitioner, that he wanted
to take copies of those documents but was permitted to take only extracts. It
will be too much of a technicality to contend that it will not be sufficient if
the petitioner is permitted to inspect the documents and take copies of those
documents but the department itself must take copies and furnish copies to
the petitioner. The argument that the petitioner has the absolute right to be
furnished with copies of the documents by the department and it is not
enough if he is permitted to peruse or inspect the documents and allowed to
take copies of those documents, is not supported by any authority”.

95
 (b) There may be certain documents which are held up in Courts of Law, which
may be reluctant to part with them even temporarily. In such cases, the CBI
should be requested to obtain the photostat copies. If the accused insists on
seeing the originals, arrangements may be made by the CBI with the court to
allow the inspection of docume nts in the court premises. The Presenting
Officer should be directed to make the necessary arrangements in this
regard.

819. Procedure to be followed after the inquiry is completed by the Railway Inquiry
Officers:

The following procedure shall be adopted in such cases :

(i) The Railway Inquiry Officer will send 5 copies of Inquiry Report to the
“Authority” who ordered the inquiry or to his Secretariat.

(ii) The “Authority” will send 4 copies to SDGM/CVO of the Railway / Production
Unit for obtaining 2nd stage advice of the CVC. He should not send any copy to
the charged official for obtaining his representation at this stage.
(iii) SDGM / CVO will forward the report in 3 copies to the Board (Vigilance) with
his comments. He may retain one copy of the report with him.
(iv) Board (Vigilance) after examination of the report will forward 2 copies of the
report to CVC with its comments.

(v) CVC will scrutinize the report and return one copy of the IO’s report to Board
along with their second stage advice.

(vi) CVC’s 2nd stage advice will be sent to SDGM for onward transmission to the
“authority” mentioned at item (i) above. The “authority” after considering Inquiry
Officer’s report and CVC’s 2nd stage advice as also other relevant facts meriting
consideration will send to charged official a copy of report of Inquiry Officer for
making his representation or submission if any against the Inquiry
Report/findings. In case the “authority” wishes to disagree with findings in the
Inquiry report, which should be based essentially on the 2nd stage advice of CVC,
he will also simultaneously call for representation of the charged official on points
of disagreement which will form an addendum to the Inquiry Report. The
disagreement memo will spell out the grounds for not agreeing with the findings
of IO. While doing so, the “authority” need not convey his view in any form, even
if, they are not in agreement either with the IO’s report or with the 2nd stage
advice of CVC, to the charged official, but instead he should reserve his
judgement till such time the representation of the charged official is received.
Thereafter, the “authority” will take appropriate action for imposition of penalty
or otherwise taking into consideration the Inquiry Officer’s report, the charged
officer’s representation, CVC’s 2nd stage advice as also other relevant facts
meriting consideration. In case the action proposed by the “authority” is at
variance with CVC’s second stage advice, views recorded by it should be

96
 considered as a “provisional decision”, and further action taken in terms of
Board’s letter No. 88/V-I/CVC/1/1 dated 5.4.1988.

(Authority: Railway Board’s letters No. 88/V-I/CVC/1/2(Pt)

dated 13.09.1994, No.98/V-1/CVC/1/5 dated 05/08/1998).

(vii) Appropriate stage for passing speaking orders by Disciplinary Authority in

Vigilance cases involving CVC’s advice – In view of the reasons mentioned in
Board’s letter No. 2004/V-1/VP/1/9 dated 6.1.2005, the Disciplinary Authority
should pass the Speaking Order based on the 2nd stage advice of CVC only.
(viii) Role of Disciplinary Authority in decision taking on CVC’s advice –
Disciplinary Authority at the time of issue of final orders imposing a penalty on
the charged official and/or at the time of deposing affidavits in the courts, should
in no case imply that any decision has been taken under the influence of the
CVC, as the Commission is only an Advisory Body and it is for the Disciplinary
Authority to apply its mind subsequent to obtaining the Commission’s advice and
take reasoned decisions on each occasion.
(Board’s letter No. 2003/V-1/CVC/1/19 dated 19-4-2004)

(ix) Consultation with CVC - making available a copy of the CVC’s advice to
theconcerned employee – The advice tendered by the CVC is just that, it is for
the DA to apply his mind independently on the facts of the case and come to a
conclusion on the nature of proceedings under the relevant rules of the
Organisation and later the decision on the inquiry report and the quantum of
punishment. The role of the CVC is to ensure that disciplinary cases having
vigilance overtones are dealt with properly in the overall interest of integrity and
probity in public service. To this extent, the disciplinary action against the
charged officers, is not expected to be influenced by the advice from the CVC.
Where, however, the disciplinary authority relies on the advice and
communication from the CVC, these cases should really be exceptional, it is only
fair and just that the charged officer should have access to this advice in order to
defend himself properly. The overriding concern of the CVC, is with regard to
satisfying the principles of natural justice. The railway will have to take necessary
action keeping in view the spirit behind this principle. It will be open to them to
take a view on supplying copies of the CVC’s advice on a case to case basis,
ensuring always that principles of natural justice are not violated. Should
this be contested by the CO, it will be for the Railways to satisfy any court that
the charged officer has not been adversely affected by their decision to withhold
copies of documents including CVC’s advice.

(Authority: Railway Board’s letter No.2001/V-1/CVC/1/2 dated 12/07/2004)

97
820. Disciplinary Authority’s finding on the Inquiry Report and imposition of penalty:

The provisions contained in Rules 10(1) to 10(5) of the Railway Servants (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1968, amended vide Notification No. E(D&A) 87 RG6-151 dated
8.8.2002 should be observed while bringing out the findings on the Report. The
disciplinary authority must send a copy of inquiry report of Inquiry Officer or himself if
he had himself he ld the inquiry together with his own tentative reasons for
disagreement, if any, with findings of the Inquiry Officer, asking the railway servant to
submit his written representation to the disciplinary authority within 15 days. The
disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the
Railway servant and record its findings regarding penalty to be imposed on the Railway
servant. No further opportunity of making representation before imposing the penalty is
required to be given to the Railway servant.
While passing the final orders the following instructions may also be kept in view.

SUBSIDIARY INSTRUCTIONS

(1) If a Railway servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower stage in his

time scale, the Disciplinary Authority ordering such reduction shall state the
period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration it shall operate to
postpone further increment and if so to what extent.

It should be ensured that every order passed by a competent authority imposing

on the railway servant the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale
invariably specifies that stage in terms of rupees to which the railway servant is
reduced as in the following form :

The................... had decided that Shri.......................... should be reduced to a pay

of Rs.................. for a period of ...................... with effect from ............

[Board’s letter No. F(E) 60/FRI / 2 dated 22.8.1968]

(2) If a railway servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or

post or a lower time scale, the Disciplinary Authority ordering the reduction may
or may not specify the period for which the reduction shall be effective; but where
the period is specified, the authority shall also state whether, on restoration, the
period or reduction shall operate to postpone future increment and, if so, to what
extent.
(3) Supply of duplicate copies of proceedings and findings of Departmental
Enquiry Committee – In cases where the Railway Administration concerned is
satisfied that there has been a genuine loss or misplacement of the copy of the
proceedings and findings of the Departmental Enquiry Committee supplied earlier
to the accused Railway servant, requests for the supply of duplicate copies thereof
received from him should be acceded to.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 62 RG 6-20 dated 10-4-1962)

98
(4) Orders imposing the penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement – Orders imposing the penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement or reduction should invariably indicate the specific charges that stand
substantiated, based on which any of these penalties is imposed.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 63RG6-26(c), dated 28-8-1963 and 30-9-1963).

(5) Keeping of the copies or Orders of Punishment in the Confidential Rolls of

the accused Railway servants – If as a result of the disciplinary proceedings any
of the prescribed punishment is imposed on a Railway servant, a record of the
same should invariably be kept in his confidential report. Further, if on the
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings it is decided not to impose any of the
prescribed punishments but to administer only a ‘warning’ or ‘reprimand’ etc. a
mention of such warning etc. should also be made in the confidential report.

(Min, of Home Affairs O.M. No. 39/12/59-Estt dated 23.4.1960).

(7) Notice from the accused Railway servant to file a writ petition or a suit in the
Court of Law during Disciplinary Proceedings – No departmental proceedings
need be held up at any stage merely because a writ petition or suit has been
threatened or filed. Proceedings should be stayed only if the Court itself has
specifically ordered that they should be stayed. Such a stay order is usually
received direct from the Court.

(8) Fixation of seniority of Railway servant reduced to a lower post/grade/service

and subsequently repromoted to higher post – The penalty of reduction to a
lower service, grade or post or to a lower time scale should invariably be imposed
for a specified period unless it is considered necessary that the period of reduction
should be for an indefinite period. Where the order imposing such penalty does
not specify the period of reduction and this coupled with an order declaring the
Railway servant permanently unfit for promotion, the question of repromotion
will, obviously, not arise. In other cases where the period of reduction is not
specified, the Railway servant should be deemed to be reduced for an indefinite
period, i.e. till such date as, on the basis of his performance subsequent to the
order of reduction, he may be considered fit for promotion. On re-promotion the
seniority of such a Railway servant should be determined from the date of re-
promotion. In all such cases, the person loses his original seniority in the higher
service, grade or post in entirety. On re-promotion, the seniority of such a
Railway servant should be determined by the date of re-promotion without regard
to the service rendered by him in such service, grade or post prior to his reduction.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A)62RG6-46, dated 30th July, 1964 and 26th October,
1964).

99
(9) In cases where the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post of lower
time scale is for a specified period, on expiry of the specified period, the
employee concerned should be re-promoted automatically to the post from which
he was reduced. The seniority in the original service, grade or post or time scale
should be fixed in such cases, as follows :-

(a) In cases where the reduction is not to operate to postpone future increments,
the seniority of the Railway servant should be fixed in the higher service,
grade or post or the higher time scale at what it would have been but for his
reduction.

(b) Where the reduction is to operate to postpone future increments, the

seniority of the Railway servant would be fixed by giving credit for the
period of services, rendered by him in the higher service, grade or post or
higher time scale prior to his reduction.

(c) The authority imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower grade or post
etc., on a railway servant for a specified period has to pass direction
regarding the effect of the penalty on the seniority and pay in the higher
grade or post, on restoration of the Railway servant to that higher grade or
post after expiry of the penalty. The directions on seniority and pay are two
separate ones and have to be passed independent of each other. Where the
authority imposing the penalty has not passed any specific directions
regarding seniority or pay or both, of the Railway servant in the higher
grade or post, it should be held that the penalty will have no effect on
seniority or increments or both, as the case may be, in the higher grade or
post on restoration of the railway servant to that higher grade or post as laid
down in Board’s letter No.E(D&A)73 RG 6-5 dated 22.2.1974. Authorities
should not use the terms ‘cumulative or recurring’ effect in the orders
imposing the penalty of reduction to lower grade or post for a specified
period as these terms are liable to mis- interpretation by the authorities
responsible for implementing these penalties. If the authority uses the term
‘cumulative or recurring effect’ while passing orders, the case should be
resubmitted to the said authority advising him to pass fresh orders strictly in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 (vi), as brought out in Board’s
letter No.E(D&A) 2001 RG 6-5 dated 28.11.2002.

(10) An order imposing the penalty or reduction to a lower service, or post or to a

lower time-scale should, inter alia, invariably specify:

(i) the period of reduction, unless the clear intention is that the reduction should
be permanent or for an indefinite period; and
(ii) where the period of reduction is specified, whether on re-promotion the
Railway servant will regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade

100
 or post or higher time-scale which had been assigned to him prior to the
imposition of the penalty.

If the order of reduction is intended for an indefinite period, the order should be
framed on the following lines;
“A is reduced to the lower post / grade/ service of X until he is found fit by the
competent authority to be restored to the higher post / grade / service of Y.”
In cases where it is intended that the fitness of the Railway servant for re-
promotion or restoration to his original position will be considered only after a
specified period, the order should be made on the following lines :-

“A is reduced to the lower post / grade / service of X until he is found fit after a
period of .................... years from the date of this order, to be restored to the
higher post of Y.”
(11) These instructions take effect from 30th July, 1964. Cases dealt with previously in
accordance with the practice in vogue on Railway need not be re-opened.

Note: In cases where the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or lower
time-scale is for a specified period, on expiry of the specified period, the
employee concerned should be re-promoted automatically to the post from which
he was reduced and the employee who has started officiating vice the reduced
employee should be reverted irrespective of the length of service in that grade.
This is necessary as the reduced employee had by virtue of his original seniority
of selection, originally been promoted to the higher grade earlier than the one who
was promoted to officiate vice him on reduction. If however, an additional post
exists, the employee who was promoted to officiate vice the reduced employee
can also continue. If, at a later date, the question of reversion or promotion to a
still higher post arises, the seniority of the two employees based on the length of
service is that grade should be taken into consideration for deciding as to which of
them should be reverted or promoted.

(12) Posts vacated by a Railway serva nt dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired

from service shall not be filled substantively until the appeal and review have
been disposed of which should ordinarily not exceed one year.

821. Non-CVC vigilance cases pertaining to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees –
consultation with Vigilance:
821.1 If in a case Vigilance has recommended imposition of a major penalty and the
Disciplinary Authority proposes to exonerate or impose a minor penalty, the
Disciplinary Authority would first record his provisional order and then consult
Vigilance Organisation once. Likewise, where a major penalty has been imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority in agreement with the recommendation of the Vigilance but
the appellate/revisionary authority proposes to exonerate or impose a minor penalty, the

101
 appellate/revisionary authority would first record provisional decision and consult the
Vigilance Organisation once. After such consultation, the
disciplinary/appellate/revisionary authority, as the case may be, is free to take final
decision in the matter.

821.2 The procedure brought about above will also be followed in those cases also where the
vigilance has recommended imposition of a “Stiff Major Penalty” namely compulsory
retirement/removal/dismissal from service, but the Disciplinary
Authority/Appellate/Revisionary Authority, as the case may be, wishes to disagree and
proposes to impose any of the other major penalties.

(Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 2000 RG 6-30 dated 16.5.2001 and 23.9.2002)

822. Communication of orders:

Orders made by the disciplinary authority which would also contain its findings on each
article of charge, shall be communicated to the Railway Servant who shall also be
supplied with a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Union Public Service
Commission and, where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advice of the
Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance.
(Rule 12 of RS(D&A) Rules, amended vide notification No.E(D&A)87 RG 6-151 dated
8.8.2002).

823. Common Proceedings:

Whenever two or more Railway Servants are concerned in any case, the competent
authority may make an order that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in
a common proceedings. The provision contained in Rule 13 of Railway Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1968 would be observed in this regard.

Note:- (1) A joint enquiry is invariably held to ensure quicker disposal and to avoid the
possibility of a charge failing by each accused throwing the blame on the other. It
also precludes the possibilities of conflicting findings being given by different
Inquiry Officers.

(2) The basic idea in a common proceedings is to judge the misconduct of each of the
accused and give them the punishment with uniform scale.

(3) In common proceedings, neither the accused can give evidence against each other
nor the prosecution can summon any of them as prosecution witness (except when
a pardon has been lawfully granted). The idea is that one employee should not be
in a position to blame another and get away. Any of the accused can however
choose to act as his own defence witness.

(4) The primary requirement in ordering a common proceedings are :-

102
 (i) The President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of
dismissal from service on all such accused Railway servants may make an
order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a
common proceedings. If the authorities competent to dismiss the accused
Railway servants are different, such an order will be given by the highest of
such authorities with the consent of the others (such authorities).

(ii) Any such order shall specify:

(a) The authority which may function as the Disciplinary Authority in
these common proceedings.

(b) The penalties specified under Rule 6 which can be imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority provided that this authority will not impose any
of the penalties specified in clauses (vii) to (ix) of that rule if this
authority is subordinate to the Appointing Authority in case of any of
the accused.

(c) Whether the procedure laid down in Rule 9, 10 and 11 of the Railway
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 shall be followed in the
proceedings.
(5) Common proceedings are not permissible in following cases :

(a) Where the two accused servants are both Railway and Central/State
Government employees.
(b) Where one of the accused is in service and the other has retired.

However, if one of the accused retired on superannuation during the

pendency of common proceedings, the proceedings may be completed.
Similarly, if one of the co-accused is dismissed or removed from service on
account of some other case, it will be desirable not to drop or formally
withdraw the proceedings against him as the likelihood of dismissal order
being set aside cannot be ruled out whereby the officer concerned would be
back in service. It will however not be desirable to continue the proceedings
ex-parte against such an officer and these may be temporarily, suspended. In
the event of the order of dismissal getting quashed, the proceedings could be
revived again without a fresh formal charge-sheet.
(6) The differences between the common and simultaneous proceedings are :-

(a) All the co-accused are to be present in the common proceedings, whereas
only one of the concerned co-accused may be present in a simultaneous
proceedings at a time.

103
 (b) The charge-sheets are signed by the same Disciplinary Authority (nominated
as such) in case of common proceedings whereas in a simultaneous
proceeding, the relevant Disciplinary Authorities sign the charge-sheets and
after close of the proceedings, the enquiry report is sent to the relevant
Disciplinary Authorities.
(c) In a simultaneous proceeding (by the same Investigating Officer) each of the
co-accused can be called to depose in the enquiry proceedings of the other
accused.

824. Special procedures in certain cases:

The procedure contained in Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968 would be observed in certain special cases.

Note :- Applicability of Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968 – Guidelines thereof :

(1) Rules 9 to 13 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
prescribe the procedure for imposition of penalties (major as well as minor). Rule
14 lays down the conditions whereby the normal procedure of holding an
elaborate enquiry can be dispensed with under special circumstances, and the
disciplinary authority can pass suitable orders. Rule 14 has been framed on the
basis of the provisos to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

(2) Rule 14 (ii), corresponding to proviso (b) of Article 311 (2) specially empowers
the disciplinary authority to dispense with the elaborate procedure of inquiry. This
is a very wide power given to the disciplinary authority. As some cases resulted in
court proceedings, there has been hesitation on the part of disciplinary authority
for invoking this provision even in deserving cases. Broad guidelines for
application of Rule 14 (ii) based on the judgement of various High Courts and
Supreme Court are given below.

(3) Rule 14 (ii) can be invoked “where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold
an enquiry in the manner provided for in the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules,
1968. The first requisite, as such is that the disciplinary authority should be
satisfied regarding the impracticability of holding an inquiry. Accordingly, it is
essential that the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary authority for dispensing
with the inquiry are supported by objective facts and / or independent material.
Merely recording that if normal procedure is followed it is likely that evidence on
account of fear of threat / harassment etc. would not be adequate for dispensing
with the inquiry.

(4) Steps will have to be taken to ensure that enough evidence is collected by the
investigating agency to enable disciplinary authority to decide whether rule 14(ii)
could be applied to cases in which a passenger is benefited by the misconduct of
the employee and as such may not depose against the delinquent officer, effo rts

104
 should be made to get the statement from these person(s). If the persons hesitate
to give a positive statement then a statement to this effect that they are not
interested to pursue the matter or be available for evidence should be obtained.
Even if this is not forthcoming, the names and addresses of the persons who were
requested to give statement but who refused to do so should be recorded then and
there by the Investigating Officer concerned with an independent witness of these
facts, if practicable, so that the statement of these officers taken cumulatively will
facilitate the disciplinary authority in coming to the judgement on the course of
the action to be taken on the investigation report.

(5) The second requisite of this rule is that the disciplinary authority has to record in
writing the reasons duly supported by objective facts and / or independent
material. This order will have to be carefully recorded because this could be
subjected to a review by the Appellate Authority as well as a judicia l review. This
order should give the reasons which made the disciplinary authority to come to
the conclusion that it will not be reasonably practicable to follow the procedure
prescribed in the rules. It should be self-evident from the order.

(6) There seems to be some apprehension that though elaborate enquiry procedure
can be dispensed with, a briefer enquiry has to be conducted by the disciplinary
authority. The apprehension seems to have arisen out of the judgement of the
Supreme Court delivered in the case of T.R. Challapan (AIR 1970/SC 2216)
where the Supreme Court had held that “even though a delinquent employee has
been held guilty and convicted by a criminal court yet show-cause notice should
be given to the employee concerned as to the nature of quantum of punishment to
be imposed...........................”.

In this case, the penalty was imposed on a railway servant on the ground of
conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge and the Supreme Court
held that an enquiry, though not elaborate, should be held so that the aggrieved
railway servant might have an opportunity to represent against the penalty
imposed under Rule 14(i). This is not prima facie applicable to cases falling under
Rule 14(ii) where the disciplinary authority passes an order recording the reasons
which have rendered impracticable the holding of an enquiry. If the disciplinary
authority comes to this conclusion, what is left is to consider the circumstances of
the case and make such order thereon as it deems fit.

(Board’s Letters No. 78/Vig.I/DBR/1/3 dated 24.1.79 and No. E(D&A) 92 RG6 –
48 dated 06-04-1992).

Note:- Court Rulings in connection with dealing of cases arising out of Rule 14 (i) may
be seen at item No. 11 of Subsidiary Instructions below Rule 818 of this Chapter.

105
825(1) Model time schedule for disciplinary cases initiated by the executive:

A “model” time schedule of 202 days for finalisation of disciplinary proceedings was
laid down vide Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 69 RG6-17 dated 8.1.1971. This period was
subsequently reduced to 150 days in terms of Railway Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 86
RG6-41 dated 3.4.86 following deletion of the provisions relating to issue of show
cause notice etc. However, in terms of instructions circulated under Board’s letter No.
E(D&A) 87/RG6-151 dated 10.11.89, a copy of Inquiry Officer’s report is required to
be given to the charged official to enable him to represent against the findings of the
Inquiry Officer, before a decision is taken on the penalty to be imposed. This additional
process will increase the time taken for finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings by at
least 2 months.

In addition, there are a large number of cases in which action is taken under Rule 9 of
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, under Presidential powers, with a view to
making a cut in the pensionary benefits of a retired railway servant. These cases have to
be referred to the UPSC for their advice. The Commission, on an average takes five to
six months from the date of receipt of the case in their office till date of communication
of the advice notwithstanding the fact that the Commission have agreed to expedite
matters to the extent possible.

While laying down the “model” time schedule, it was never the intention of the Board
to make it mandatory as it may not be possible to follow it in each and every case, as
each disciplinary case has its own characteristics. The emphasis has always been on the
fact that where the Railway Administration does not find it practicable to adhere to this
target rigidly, steps should be taken to minimize, as far as possible, the additional time
likely to be taken over and above the target period.

(Board’s letters No. 90 RG6-18 dated 9.2.90 and No. E(D&A) 95/RG6-15 dated
24.4.95)

825(2) Model time schedule for disciplinary cases initiated as result of vigilance
investigations and in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission:

Despite a “model” time schedule laid down by the Establishment Directorate for
dealing with disciplinary cases, referred to in para 825(1) above, it was found that the
disciplinary cases initiated as a result of investigations by vigilance were taking, on an
average four and half years, to get finalised. Thus, Board felt that while inordinate
delay in the finalisation of disciplinary cases caused uncalled for harassment to honest
and upright officers, the dishonest officers continued to remain unpunished for longer
periods despite having committed serious irregularities with ulterior motives.

With a view to improve the system, a committee of senior officers drawn from
Establishment, Vigilance and the Central Vigilance Commission was constituted by the
Board who were entrusted with the job of identifying the reasons for delay in

106
 finalisation of the cases and to suggest remedial measures to cut down delays in the
finalisation of disciplinary cases. This committee deliberated upon the various issues at
great length and after considering all the practical problems faced by the administration
at various stages in processing the disciplinary cases recommended a time schedule for
finalisation of major penalty DAR cases initiated on vigilance advice. The “model”
time schedule recommended by the Committee and accepted by the Board is given
below:-

*1. Issue of chargesheet after receipt of 30 days

CVC’s 1st stage advice by the Railway

2. Service of chargesheet 10 days

3. Inspection of RUDs 30 days

4. Submission of written statement of 20 days

defence, list of defence witnesses &
list of defence documents

5. Decision to hold the enquiry after 30 days

receipt of the defence

6. Nomination of IO/PO in consultation 45 days

with CVC/Railway Board

7. Appointment of IO/PO 20 days

**8. Completion of enquiry and 120-180 days

submission of report

9. Obtaining CVC’s 2nd stage advice 45 days

after receipt of enquiry report

***10. Decision of DA and imposition of 3-60 days

punishment ---------------
380-470 days
---------------

* Add another 45 days for issue of chargesheet wherever President/Railway Board is the
Disciplinary Authority

** Upper time limit is for cases involving more than one charged official

*** Upper time limit is for cases to be considered by more than one DA. Add another 270
days for decision by President in consultation with UPSC.

107
 A major penalty D&AR case initiated on vigilance advice should normally be finalised
in 12-15 months by the Railways. However, where the charge sheet is issued by the
Board and final decision is to be taken by the President in consultation with the UPSC,
the time taken may be 25 ½ months.

It may be reiterated that the above “model” time schedule is not mandatory as it may
not be possible to follow it in each and every case as each disciplinary case has its own
characteristics.

However, the emphasis should be to finalise the D&AR cases in the shortest possible
time frame, as laid down in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
Quarterly reviews of the disciplinary cases may be conducted regularly both by the
executive and vigilance. Remedial steps should be taken wherever inordinate delays are
noticed.

(Board’s letter No. 94/V-I/DAR/2/1 dated 10-05-1994)

826. Cognizance of hearsay evidence:

Hearsay evidence is not altogether barred in departmental enquiries. The releva nt

extracts of the case law - Supreme Court in the State of Haryana and another vs Rattan
Singh (SLR 1977 P 750) are reproduced below :-

“Shri Rattan Singh was a conductor of the Haryana Roadways. The bus in which he
was performing duty was stopped by the flying squad which detected that 11
passengers travelling in the bus did not have tickets though they claimed that they had
paid the fares. Following a departmental inquiry his services were terminated.
However, this order was quashed by the Civil Court accepting his plea that statements
of none of the 11 passengers examined was taken by the domestic inquiry. This view
was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, pointed out that the
courts below misdirected themselves in insisting that passengers who had come in and
gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could
be recorded. They also pointed out that “in a domestic inquiry, the strict and
sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All
materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no
allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility”. Of
course, “departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in
evaluating such materials and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not
relevant under the Indian Evidence Act”. The Court went on to observe that the
Inspector Incharge of the flying squad had deposed before the tribunal that the
passengers who informed him that they had paid the fare, refused to give written
statements. The Supreme Court felt that this was some evidence relevant to the charge
and when this was the case, it was not for the courts to go into the questions whether
the evidence was adequate. The instructions that the flying squad should record the
statements of passengers were instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or in

108
 violation. In this case, the Inspector had tried to get the statements, but they declined
and their psychology in such circumstances was understandable”.

827. (a) Provision regarding Railway servants lent to other Ministry or Department
of the Central Government, State Governments, etc.:

(b) Provision regarding officers borrowed from Central or State Governments,

etc.:

827.1 Railway servants on foreign service or whose services are placed temporarily at the
disposal of any other department of the Central Government or a State Government or a
local or other authority, in terms of Rule 15 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968,
will be governed by the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 for taking disciplinary action.
Similarly, when services of a Government servant from any other Ministry or
Department of the Central Government other than the Ministry of Railways or a State
Government etc. are borrowed for appointment to a service or post under the Ministry
of Railways as per Rule 16 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, action will be taken in
accordance with the rules by which such Government servant or person is governed. In
both situations, ‘the borrowing authority’ shall also have powers for placing such
Government/Railway servant under suspension or for conducting disciplinary
proceedings against him.

827.2 It is procedurally wrong for an authority to initiate and finalise disciplinary proceedings
against an employee who is not under his administrative control. Disciplinary action
need not necessarily be for the misconduct committed during the period of deputation
but even for the misconduct committed prior to deputation. However, Rules 15 and 16
of RS (D&A) Rules place the following restrictions in case of taking action against
deputationist, which should be observed:-

(a) The borrowing authority must immediately intimate the lending authority of the
circumstances leading to order of suspension and disciplinary proceedings.

(b) In case of minor penalty, it may be imposed by the borrowing authority after
consulting the lending authority.

(c) In case of difference of opinion, the services of the deputationist shall be replaced.

(d) If a major penalty is proposed to be imposed, then also the services of

deputationist shall be replaced and records of proceedings shall be transmitted to
the lending authority.

828. Appeals, Revision and Review:

(a) Appeals - The provisions contained in Rules 17 to 24 of Railway Servants

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 would be followed while dealing with
appeals from the delinquent officials.

109
 (b) Revision - The provisions contained in Rule 25 of the Railway Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 would be followed while dealing with
disciplinary cases where the decision of the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority is
proposed to be revised.

(c) Review - The provisions contained in Rule 25-A of the Railway Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 would be observed while reviewing any
D&AR case.

If there is a major deviation from CVC advice at Appeal/Revision Stage,

intimation is required to be given to CVC. Instructions in this regard issued by
CVC have been incorporated in Para 209.9 of this manual.

829. Railway Servants convicted on criminal charge - Action thereon:

The disciplinary authority may, if it comes to the conclusion that an order, with a view
to imposing a penalty on a Railway Servant on the ground of cond uct which had led to
his conviction on a criminal charge should be issued, issue such order without waiting
for the period of filing an appeal or, if an appeal has been filed, without waiting for the
decision in the first court of appeal. Before such an order is passed, the Union Public
Service Commission should be consulted where such consultation is necessary.

(Board’s letter No. E (D&A) 79 RG6-4 dated 4.3.1976)

830. Penalty for gambling:

The conviction for gambling offenses, especially for the first time, leading to the
imposition of a fine by the Court, cannot be deemed to render the further retention
prima facie undesirable and that only minor penalties should be adequate in such cases.
{Board’s letter No. E (D&A) 63RG6-49 dated 11.11.1963}
831. Conviction under Customs Act:
The conviction under the Customs Act resulting in the imposition of personal penalty of
fine by the Collector of Central Excise of Customs cannot be considered as a conviction
on a ‘criminal charge’ as visualised in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Rule 14
(i) of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1968, the procedure
prescribed in D&A Rules cannot therefore, be bypassed if it is intended to take
departmental action against the Railway servant in the circumstances leading to such
conviction. There is, however, no objection to taking disciplinary action against him
after following the full procedure prescribed for imposition of penalties under the
Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, if considered necessary.
{Board’s letter No. E (D&A). 63 RG6-41 dated 16.10.1963}.

832. Termination of Disciplinary Proceedings:

Disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed except under the orders of a Court of
competent jurisdiction or under the written orders of the disciplinary aut hority.

110
833. Standard of proof required in a Disciplinary Enquiry:

(a) The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is that a

“preponderance of probability” - and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. As such,
High Courts / Administrative Trib unals are precluded from reviewing such
evidence or findings based thereon. If an enquiry has been properly held, the
question of adequacy of reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before courts.

(b) Although suspicion can never take the place of proof, an inference which a
reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of a case, would be
unexceptionable.

(Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur 1972 SLR 355 {SC)

834. Role of Presenting Officers / Assisting Officers:

(a) In cases which are investiga ted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, they offer
the services of their officers to present the case on bahalf of the Disciplinary
Authority. While such an officer is drawn from the Central Bureau of
Investigation, as a Presenting Officer, he acts on behalf of the Disciplinary
Authority, who may, when necessary instruct him regarding presentation of the
case. However, quite often some of the Disciplinary Authorities act on the
impression that the Presenting Officers represent the Central Bureau of
Investigation and they are not instructed properly or shown all the documents of
the case which are in the possession of Disciplinary Authority but were not taken
over by the Investigating Officer during investigation. The Presenting Officer also
looks for instructions from their Superintendents of Police and do not take
progress of the case from the Inquiring Authority. Whereas the relations between
the Presenting Officer and the Disciplinary Authority should be one of the client
and counsel, in actual practice they do not work out in this manner often. There is,
therefore, a great need for proper dialogue between the Presenting Officer and the
Vigilance Officer of the Department.

(b) The proceedings before the Inquiring Authority are of a confidential nature and no
publicity should be given to them by the parties or their agents. The Presenting
Officer and the Assisting Officer are meant to assisting the Inquiring Authority in
coming to the truth of the matter and they should not adopt the posture of
prosecutor and defence counsel, which is adopted by such functionaries in the
courts.

835. Defence Counsel in absence of the accused:

If in any particular hearing, the accused is unable to come for any reasons, his defence
counsel can proceed with the case if he has authorization to this effect from the accused
officer.

111
836. Amendment of the charge sheet:

836.1 During the course of a disciplinary enquiry, there is no objection to the charge sheet
being amended by the Disciplinary Authority, but the accused Government servant
should be given a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence including the
production of new evidence or to recall a witness already examined, in respect of the
amended charge.

836.2 If the amendment to the charge sheet is of a major nature, it will be advisable to cancel
the first chargesheet clearly indicating in the order cancelling of the original
chargesheet with the intention of issuing a new chargesheet thereby starting the
proceedings de novo. It may be clarified here that the order cancelling the original
charge-sheet or dropping the proceedings should be carefully worded so as to mention
the reasons for such an action indicating the intention of issuing chargesheet afresh
appropriate to the nature of the charges. If adequate reasons for cancelling / withdrawal
of the original chargesheet are not indicated, issue of another chargesheet on the same
facts after withdrawing the first one will be considered entirely without authority.

{Board’s letter No. E (D&A) 93RG6 - 83 dated 1.12.1993}

837. Documents which can be safely denied:

The following are some of documents access to which may reasonably be denied :-

(i) Reports of investigation :- The reports of the CBI or the reports of the fact-
finding inquiry on the basis of which charge sheet is issued. These reports are
intended only for the Disciplinary Authority and even the Inquiring Authority
does not see them.

(ii) File dealing with disciplinary case against Government Servant :- The file in
which the reports of preliminary inquiry / investigation is dealt with and which
contains the various notes leading to the issue of chargesheet is a confidential file
and may be denied.

(iii) Advice of the Ministry of Law :- The advice of the Ministry of Law is
confidential and is meant to assist the Disciplinary Authority.

838. Production of priced publications as additional documents:

If the additional document asked for by the accused officer is a priced publication, such
as proceedings of Parliament or State Legislature, it is not the duty of Inquiring
Authority or the Presenting Officer to have the same produced for inspection. The
accused may produce it as a defence exhibit. If, however, he is not able to get the copy,
the Inquiring Authority or the prosecution may assist him to the extent possible in
securing such priced publication but no duty is cast on them to get the publication.

112
839. Reducing delays in Departmental Inquiries:

The instructions for streamlining of conduct of Disciplinary proceedings to reduce in

delay, circulated under Board’s letters No. E(D&A)2004/RG-14 dated 02/07/2004,
2004/V-1/DAR/1/1 dated 19/07/2004 and 2003/V-1/CVC/1/5 Pt.A dated 19/07/2004
should be observed.

840. Disagreement with the Inquiry Officer:

(a) Where the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the Inquiring Officer’s findings,
after a copy of the report is given to the charged official, it should record
forthwith its reasoned speaking orders of punishment to be awarded to the
charged official.

(b) Where, however, the Disciplinary Authority does not agree with the Inquiry
Officer, reasons why the findings in the Inquiry Report cannot be accepted should
be communicated to the delinquent official alongwith a copy of the Inquiry
Officer’s report advising him to submit his representation, if any, within 15 days
from the date of communication forwarding the Inquiry Officer’s report. On
receipt of reply from the charged official to such a communication or after expiry
of the notice period, the Disciplinary Authority should record its reasoned
speaking orders on the disciplinary proceedings.

(Rule 10 of RS(D&A) Rules, amended vide notification No.E(D&A)87 RG 6-151

dated 8.8.2002).

It is very important to properly frame the memorandum of disagreement where it

should be clearly indicated that Disciplinary Authority has taken a tentative decision to
disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of article of charge (s) not
held proved/partly proved. A sample of memorandum of disagreement is circulated to
the Railways for guidance vide Board’s letter No.2004/V-1/DAR/1/4 dated 13.9.2004.

113
 Annexure -VIII/1

Miscellaneous provisions regarding grant of leave, TA, Passes etc., to ‘accused Railway
servants’ and ‘Assisting Railway servants’

1. Facilities of Leave, Passes, etc. to accused Railway servants and their assisting
person for attendance before the Inquiring Authority

1.1 The accused Railway servant should be given special passes for journeys undertaken in
this connection. If he is under suspension, he is eligible for TA as for journey on tour in
terms of Rule 1672-RII (1987 Edition). On reinstatement, the period of suspension
including that spent for attending the inquiry, is regularised as duty, non-duty or leave
by the competent authority under Rule 1345-RII (1987 Edition). If he is not under
suspension, he may also be given TA as on tour on the analogy of Rule 1672-RII (1987
Ed.). The period spent in attending the inquiry should be treated as duty or leave,
according as he is on duty or on leave at that time, on the analogy of instructions
contained in Board’s letter No. F (E) 59/AL-28/14 dated 18th March, 1960.

1.2 The Assisting Railway servant is eligible to the grant of TA as on tour under Rule
1667-R-II vide Board’s letter No. F (E) 60/AL-28/27 dated 15 June, 1961. He is also
eligible fo r the grant of reasonable special leave and special pass vide Board’s letter
No. E 41 RG 6-2 dated 4th February, 1941 and item 3 of the statement forwarded with
Board’s letter No. E 51 RG 6-20 dated 8th April, 1953.

1.3 The Assisting Trade Union Official (non-railway servant ) is eligible to the grant of TA
under Rule 1696-RII (1987 Edition) vide para 8 of Board’s letter No. F (E) 60/AL-
28/27 dated 15th June, 1961. He is not eligible to the grant of passes vide item 3 of the
statement forwarded with Board’s letter No. E 51 RG 6-20 dated 8th April, 1953.

(Railway Board’s letter No. E (D&A) 64 RG 6-22 dated 23rd July, 1966).

2. Facilities of leave, passes, TA etc. to accused Railway servants and their assisting
persons for inspection of official documents

2.1 The accused railway servant is eligible for free Railway passes in this connection. He is
also eligible to the grant of TA as for journey on tour, without any allowance for halts.
If he is not under suspension, time taken in journey and in inspection of relevant
official records, should be treated as duty or leave at that time as per Board’s letter No.
F (E) 59/AL-28/14 dated 18th March, 1960. If he is under suspension on reinstatement,
the period should be treated as duty, non-duty or leave, in accordance with the orders
passed by the competent authority under Rule 1345-R-II (1987 Edition).

114
 Annexure -VIII/1 (contd.)

2.2 The Assisting Railway Servants may be given special passes. In addition, they may also
be given special casual leave upto a maximum of three days in one disciplinary case at
the discretion of the competent authority. No TA or DA would be admissible.

2.3 The Assisting Trade Union Official (non-railway servant) is not eligible to the grant of
facilities like grant of Passes and TA etc.

(Railway Board’s letter Nos. E (D&A) 64RG6-22 dated 2nd February, 1967 and 23rd
July, 1966).

115