Holding

An inquiry officer must consider an application to summon a witness and pass an order; failure to do so violates natural justice, rendering the disciplinary proceeding unfair, but the Tribunal and High Court were not in error, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Prakash Kumar Tandon, an Inspector of Works in Indian Railways, was charged with accepting sub‑standard wood and faced disciplinary action that reduced his pay. He wrote to the appointed Inquiry Officer, the Chief of the Vigilance Department, requesting that Assistant Engineer B.S. Walia be summoned as a witness, but the request was ignored. The disciplinary authority found him guilty, and the appellate authority enhanced the penalty. Tandon challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that the failure to examine the requested witness violated natural justice; the High Court dismissed his writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that an inquiry officer must consider applications to summon witnesses and that appointing a senior vigilance officer as the inquiry officer was improper, but it found no error in the Tribunal’s or High Court’s findings and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The propriety of appointing the Chief of the Vigilance Department as the inquiry officer in a disciplinary proceeding initiated after a vigilance raid.
Whether the inquiry officer was obligated to consider the respondent's application to summon a witness under the principles of natural justice.
Whether the failure to summon the requested witness rendered the disciplinary proceedings unfair and the penalty unsustainable.
Whether the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court were erroneous.

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsnatural justicewitness summoninginquiry officerrailway service lawprocedural fairnessCentral Administrative Tribunalpenalty

Judgment

i [2008] 17 S.C.R. 855
'
~

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
...._i' v.
PRAKASH KUMAR TANDON
(Civil Appeal No. 7349 of 2008)
DECEMBER 17, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

... Service Law:
Disciplinary proceedings - Application for summoning qf
witness by delinquent employee not considered by Enquiry c
officer - Justification of - Held: Not justified - It was obligatory
on part of Enquiry officer to pass an order in the application
- He could not refuse to consider the same - Enquiry officer,
being a quasi judicial authority, must perform his functions
fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement D
of principles of natural justice - If disciplinary proceedings
was not fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the
delinquent employee was prejudiced thereby- Establishment
Code of Indian Railways, Vol I - Chapter V, para 3 -
Principles of natural justice.
E
Disciplinary proceedings - Initiated after raid conducted
by Vigilance Department - Appointment of the Chief,
Vigilance Department as Enquiry officer - Propriety of- Held:
Not proper - It was unfair to the delinquent employee.
Respondent was working in the Department of F
.-- t Railways as Inspector, Works. Charge-sheet was issued
against him on the premise that he accepted sub-
standard wood. Respondent gave written letter
requesting the Inquiry Officer to summon one 'B' as ,a
witness. 'B' was an Assistant Engineer purportedly
responsible for quality of wood. The Inquiry Offic~r G
ignored the letter of respondent. In the disciplinary
-'"'('
proceedings, respondent was found guilty and as
penalty, his pay was reduced. Appellate Authority
enhanced the penalty by further reducing the pay.
855 H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Respondent filed application before the Tribunal inter
alia contending. that since 'B' was not examined as a +~

witness, the order imposing penalty was unsustainable.
Tribunal allowed the application. Writ petition filed by
Appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the
B present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The disciplinary proceedings were
initiated after a raid was conducted by the Vigilance ,>·
Department. The enquiry officer was the Chief of the
c Vigilance Department. He evidently being from the
Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to the
delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an
enquiry officer at all. [Para 14] (861-G]
1.2. In any event, the Tribunal as also the High Court
D cannot be sa·id to· have erred in holding that 'B' should
have been examined as a witness. The Central Railway
Administration as far back as on 3-4-1990 had issued a
clarification stating that woodwork shall continue to be
passed by Asst. Engineer. (Paras 12 and 16] (861-A, DJ
E 1.3. The principles of natural justice demand that an
applica.tion for summoning a witness. by the delinquent
officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was
obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an
order in the said application. He could not refuse to
F consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration
to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether 'r
any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for
the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A
disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An
enquiry.officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore,
G must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which
is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of
....,
natural justice. If the disciplinary proceedings have not
been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn th~t the
delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. Though over
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 857
TANDON

the years, the principle of natural justice has been A
watered down but in a situation of this nature, the
~-r concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High
Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering
from any legal infirmity warranting interference. [Paras 17,
19 and 20) [862-C-D-H; 863-A-B] 8
M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88
and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 S<?C 379,
-
relied on.
A.
~
Case Law Reference:
(2006) s sec 88 referred to Para 18 c
(1980) 4 sec 379 relied on Para 20
CIVIL ·APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7349 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.2005 of the High
D
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 10672
of 2004.
Rajni Ohri Lal, Anil Katiyar and 8. Krishna Prasad for the
Appellants.
V.S. Raju and Debasis Misra for the Respondent. E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
dated 12.05.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya F
Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder a writ petition
.r-1 filed by the appellant herein from a judgment and order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the respondent's
original application, was dismissed.
3. Respondent, at all material times, was and still is G
working as Inspector of Works at Satna. Allegedly, on the
premise that he had accepted substandard quality of wood, a
charge-sheet was issued. Indisputably, the procedure for
- ~
imposition of major~penalties on Railway Servants is governed
.. by Chapter V of Establishment Code Volume-I; paragraph 3 H
f

~
'
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 17 S.C.R.
~
v

A whereof reads as under:
"3. Appointment of Board of Inquiry or Inquiring
Officer (R.1710). The Disciplinary Authority may enquire -.~

into the charges itself or if it considers necessary, it may,
either at the time of communicating the charges to the
B Railway servant under Rule 1709 or at any time thereafter,
appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the
,...-
purpose, which will be termed as the "Inquiring Authority".
Note-This is an enabling rule. The inquiry may be
·'
>-
conducted by the Disciplinary Authority itself or he may get ;.,.
c the same done through an agency of his choice. The choice
is confined either to a Board or a named Officer. The
procedure in all cases is to be in accordance with t_hat laid
down in Rule 1709 ante."
4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed for holding the said
D disciplinary enquiry. He was a· Chief Engineer being on
deputation to the Vigilance Department. Whereas the
appointing authority of the respondent was of the rank of District
Railway Manager, the. Disciplinary authority is only a Senior
Executive Engineer. The District Railway Manager of Railways
E is ~lso the appellate authority.
5. Before the disciplinary proceedings commenced,
respondent, indisputably by a letter dated 20.2.1996 requested
the Inquiry Officer to summon the Assistant Engineer Mr. B.S.
Walia, stating :
F "You will be kind enough to fi?< up date of the next inquiry
in first Fortnight of March 1996 anywhere as per your
~....
convenience.
Shri B.S. Walia, A.E.N.(M) STA now A.E.N. (M) N.G.P.
"Headquarter" must be called for as the AEN who recorded
G 100% test check.
All other witnesses to whom the vigilance wants to
examine may be called and there presence,be ensured.
7--.
Further the inquiries date to be fixed for.examination and
the same sequence arguments are also submitted. This
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 859
TANDON [S.B. SINHA, J.]

will facilitate early completion of an inquiry. A
_._.., EX AEN (C) STA Shri B.S. Walia, who is of course
is a Rly. Witness but since he is very much involved in
measurements and checking in supply, he may be
specifically be requested to be present to clear many
contradiction to enable the inquiry officer to derive at a fair B
and free judicious conclusion."
6. The said letter was not responded to. It was not rejected
either. Conceded_ly, the said Mr. Walia was not examined.
7. In the disciplinary proceedings, respondent was found
guilty. Punishment of reduction of pay to the lower stage in the C
scale of 6500-10500/- for a period of two years with cumulative
effect was imposed on him by the disciplinary authority by an
order dated 6.1.1998. He preferred an appeal thereagainst
before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. The
Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty by directing reduction D
of his pay to the lowest stage of Rs.6500/- in the scale of pay
-+ of Rs.6500-10500/- for a period of three years with cumulative
effect.
8. Order of the Appellate Authority was questioned by the
respondent by filing an original application before the Central E
Administration Tribunal. In the said application, respondent,
inter alia, contended that Inquiry Officer being superior in rank
to the Disciplinary Authority and Mr. B.S. Walia having not been
examined as a witness by the Department, the order imposing
penalty was unsustainable. F
The learned Tribunal held :
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
from Annexure-A3 that "AEN is responsible for correctness
of m/ment for all works" and applicant has also requested
to the respondents to call the AEN for clarifying the picture. G
But, he was not called whereas he was main person to
clarify the picture. In the reply the respondents have stated
that Shri Walia was interrogated by the vigilance and
nothing was found against him. Hence he was not called
nor cited as witness. It seems to be not satisfactory, H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
'

A therefore, the contention of the respondents is rejected.
We have also found that the enquiry officer was from a
different department and of a different division and thus
there is no question of daring to disagree or a
reappreciated the findings by independent application of
mind. However, the argument advanced by the ,
B
respondents also does not seem to be proper and justified.
The enquiry officer must be junior to the disciplinary
authority. He may be of any department. If the enquiry
office'r is senior to the disciplinary authority, the same is
neither legal nor justified and it is against the principles of
c natural justice." '
9. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been
dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned
judgment.

0
10. Ms. Rajni Ohri Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, would submit that respondent cannot be said
to have been prejudiced by reason of the appointment of the +
Chief Engineer as an enquiry officer who was on deputation to
Vigilance Department as he was from a different department
and, thus, the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
E were not working under him. In any event, had such a plea been
· raised by the respondent before the disciplinary authority, the
enquiry officer could have been changed and in that view of the
matter, he must be held to have waived his right. It was urged
that as the function of the disciplinary authority and the enquiry
F officer are different, the question of suffering any prejudice by
the respondent did not arise. So far as non-summoning of the
witness of Mr. Walia is concerned, the learned counsel would
contend, he had been interrogated by the vigilance department
and as he was found to be innocent, it was not found necessary
G to examine him. It was always open to the prosecution, the
learned counsel would contend, to examine or not to examine
any witness on behalf of the department.
-r·
11. Mr. Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, would contend that examination
H of Mr. Walia was essential as the passing of timber and wood
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 861
TANDON [S.B. SINHA, J.]

work was within the domain of the Executive Engineer. A
12. The learned counsel appears to be correct. The
Central Railway Administration as far back as on 3.4.1990 •
issued a clarification as to whether the power of the Assistant
Engineer to pass the timber/wood work has been taken away
or not, to state : B
"The matter has been scrutinized & it is observed that the
confusion has arisen due to use of the word 'Engineer' in
the specification No.1001. Corelating the word Engineer
with GCC implied Divisional Engineer and hence the
.interpretation was extended accordingly in the circular c
referred above.
However, after reconsidering the matter and going through
the instructions on delegation of powers in respect of
measurement (RB's letter No.71/W1/CT/16 dated 23.7.87)
it is seen that AEN is responsible for correctness of ml D
ment for all works. Wood work and other materials have
been traditionally been passed by Asst. Engineer.
~
Hence, it has been decided by CE in partial modification
of above circular that woodwork shall continue to be
passed by Asst. Engineer." E

13. Respondent, in his defence, contended that the
measurement book was checked by Mr. Walia on 5.7.1991 and
6. 7.1991. According to him, he was not at all responsible either
as regards the quality of wood or the correctness of
measurement of the timber in question. F

,. ~ 14. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated only after
a raid was conducted by the Vigilance Department. The enquiry
officer was the Chief of the Vigilance Department. He evidf!!ntly
being from the Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to
the delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an
G
enquiry officer at all.
15. From the evidence of another Assistant Engineer who
had taken part in the raid, it is evident that the"'alleged loss
caused to the railways was negligible and mere marginal
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
.,>,

A allowances are permitted for measurement of 'scantlings and
• planks' .
r
.16. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the. opinion
that the Tribunal as also the High Court cannot be said to have
erred in holding that the said Mr. Walia should have been
B examined as a witness.
17. The principles of natural justice demand that an
application for summoning a witness by the delinquent officer
should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory ir
on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said
c application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not
for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to
consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it ...
or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon.
A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry
0 officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform
his functions fairly and r~asonably which is even otherwise the
requirement of the principles of natural justice.
t
18. In M. V. Bij/ani v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC
88], this Court has held :
E "Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are
not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond
all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
'\
the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who
upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion
F that there had been a preponderance of probability to
prove the charges on the basis of materials on. record.
While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any
irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant '"
facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject
G the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis
of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the
allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been
charged with." ,....
19. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly ·~

H conducted, an inference can be drawn that the d,elinquent officer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 863
TANDON [S.B. SINHA, J.]

was prejudiced thereby. A
20. In S.L Kapoorv. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 379,
this Court has held that non-compliance of the principles of
natural justice itself causes prejudice. We are not oblivious of
the fact that the said principle has since been watered down
but in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that the 8
concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court
cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal
infirmity warranting interference.
21. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs.
Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-. C
8.8.8. Appeal dismissed.