While the Railway Vigilance Manual is procedural, its significance should not be disregarded, as it serves to protect employees from false implications: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case: Union of India v. B.S. Purushotham
Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi
Case No.: WP 13000 OF 2018
Court Observation: “Thus, it is well settled in law that the safeguards provided to a railway employee under Paras 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual, 1996, cannot be given a complete go- bye and in order to judge whether the departmental proceedings stood vitiated or not the cumulative effect of illegalities/irregularities is required to be taken into consideration,”
“In view of the findings recorded that the trap was not conducted as per Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual; there was no independent witness, the alleged statement of the delinquent during vigilance check could not be relied against him without any corroboration and the C.C notes were not recovered from the delinquent, coupled with the fact that the enquiry officer acted as a presenting officer and no presenting officer was appointed; we hold in point No.1 that the. proceedings and the penalty orders are vitiated. The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect does not call for any interference.”
“We do not find force in the submission of the learned Central Government Counsel that if the revisional order was not passed by competent authority, the Tribunal should have maintained the order of penalty as passed by the Disciplinary Authority, for the obvious reason, that on the findings recorded by the Tribunal and considered in Point No.1 (supra) even the penalty order of the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. Once the original order of penalty is unsustainable its enhancement by the authority revising it for higher punishment also cannot stand, irrespective of the point of jurisdiction,”
Previous Posts
Madras High Court Hands Down 3-Year Jail Term to TN Minister Ponmudi in Disproportionate Asset Case
