Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mangal Chand Meena vs Northern Railway on 14 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 3837/2023
Reserved on: 09.01.2026
Pronounced on: 14.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Mangal Chand Meena, aged about 34 years,
S/o Narsi Lal Meena,
R/o Village Devitala, Raisar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-303109 - Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. S.N. Sharma with Mr. Rakesh Kumar)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through: the General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Divisional Personal Officer/Senior DEE
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi-110001 - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Sinha)
2026.01.14
LALIT GOSAIN
16:39:16+05'30'
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the service on 10.05.2013 on the post of Technician Grade-III (Electrical) and was subsequently confirmed on the said post in the year 2016. From the date of his appointment till the impugned action, the applicant discharged his duties with utmost sincerity, honesty, and dedication to the full satisfaction of his superiors. During his entire service career, the applicant was never charge-sheeted and maintained an unblemished and clean service record.
2. It is submitted that on 22.07.2022, the applicant was falsely implicated in a criminal case, which is still pending trial before the competent criminal court. Immediately thereafter, on the very same date i.e. 22.07.2022, the respondents issued an order placing the applicant under suspension. To the utter shock and surprise of the applicant, without conducting any departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing or calling for any reply from the applicant, the respondents passed another impugned order of removal from service on the same date i.e. 22.07.2022.
3. Aggrieved by the said action, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal dated 18.08.2022 before the appellate authority against the order dated 22.07.2022. However, the said appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a Revision Petition before the competent Revisional Authority/DE.M on 12.01.2023, which also did not yield any relief.
2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 3
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The respondents have failed to consider the fact that both the suspension order and the removal order were issued on the same date i.e. 22.07.2022, without assigning any reasons in writing as to how and why holding a departmental enquiry was not reasonably practicable. Such action is in clear violation of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, which mandates recording of reasons for dispensing with an enquiry.
5. It is further submitted that the respondents have also violated Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, as the applicant was removed from service without holding any departmental enquiry and without following the due process of law prescribed under the said Rules.
6. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the criminal case pending against the applicant is of a grave nature and is still under trial. Removal of the applicant from service during the pendency of the criminal trial has caused serious prejudice to the applicant and has adversely affected his defence in the criminal proceedings. It is a settled position of law, as held in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that where criminal proceedings are pending on identical facts, departmental proceedings should ordinarily be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal trial.
7. It is further submitted that nowhere in the impugned orders has it been stated under what exceptional circumstances the holding of a departmental enquiry was not practicable. Mere registration of a 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 4 criminal case does not make the departmental enquiry impracticable. Dispensation of enquiry is permissible only in rare and exceptional cases, such as where the integrity of the administration is at stake or where witnesses are likely to be threatened, which is not the case here.
8. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents have completely ignored the applicant's clean and unblemished service record and the fact that he was never charge-sheeted prior to the present action. The order of removal has been passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind and is therefore perverse, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
9. Lastly, it is submitted that the respondents' contention that no cause of action has accrued to the applicant is wholly misconceived. The impugned orders clearly infringe the constitutional and statutory rights of the applicant, thereby giving rise to a valid cause of action for invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2609, is misplaced and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. While opposing the OA, counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that that no cause of action has accrued to the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal by way of judicial review, as no enforceable legal right of the applicant, nor any statutory rule or binding instruction, has been violated or infringed by the respondents. Reliance in this regard is 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 5 placed upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2609.
11. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the applicant, Sh. Mangal Chand Meena, S/o Shri Narshi Lal Meena, was last posted as TL Tech-III at TL Depot/NDLS. He was arrested by GRP/NDLS on the intervening night of 21-22.07.2022, and FIR No. 61/22 dated 22.07.2022 under Sections 376D/342 IPC was registered against him. Consequent upon his arrest, the competent authority, namely ADEE/Chg/NDLS, placed the applicant under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 22.07.2022. Considering the gravity of the charges and the circumstances of the case, the competent Disciplinary Authority, i.e., DEE/Chg/DLI, exercised powers under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and removed the applicant from service vide order dated 22.07.2022, being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable or necessary to hold a regular departmental inquiry in the manner prescribed under the Rules.
12. Counsel for the respondents submitted that aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority, i.e., Sr. DEE/Chg/DLI. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration, rejected the appeal vide order dated 22.09.2022, observing that the charges against the applicant were of a very grave nature and that no new facts had been brought on record to establish his non-involvement in the incident. Thereafter, the applicant filed a revision petition before the Revisional Authority, 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 6 i.e., ADRM/OP, which was also duly considered and rejected. The rejection of the revision petition was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 10.04.2023.
13. It is further submitted that the FIR registered by GRP/NDLS pertains to the applicant's alleged involvement in a case of gang rape of an outsider lady, which is an offence of extreme seriousness. Based on the FIR and the prima facie material available, the applicant was initially placed under suspension with effect from 22.07.2022. However, in view of the gravity of the allegations, the competent authority revoked the suspension on the same day and proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service by invoking Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968.
14. Counsel for the respondents contended that the competent Disciplinary Authority recorded its satisfaction that the circumstances of the case rendered it impracticable to hold a departmental inquiry. The applicant remained in judicial custody for nearly five months and was subsequently released on conditional bail. After thorough consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of removal from service.
Counsel for the respondents further contended that the matter has been duly examined at all statutory stages by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority, and the Revisional Authority, and detailed, reasoned, and speaking orders have been passed by each of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the present Original Application 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 7 is devoid of merit, discloses no cause of action, and is liable to be dismissed with costs in favour of the replying respondents.
15. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the pleadings available on record.
16. In order to adjudicate the present matter, we have carefully perused the judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Trial Court in SC No. 696/2022, CNR No. DL-CT01-014917-2022. Upon a detailed examination of the record, we find it necessary to reproduce and rely upon the relevant paragraphs of the said decision, as they clearly and cogently demonstrate the existence of sufficient material and evidence indicating the active involvement of the applicant with the prosecutrix:-
"1. Accused Satish Kumar and Vinod Kumar have been sent to face trial for offences u/s 376D/342 IPC with the allegations that on 22.07.2022 in the midnight between 12.30 AM to 02.30 AM, they both confined prosecutrix 'A' in Train Lighting Staff Room situated at platform no.8/9, New Delhi Railway Station and thereafter committed gang rape upon her. The case against remaining accused Jagdish Chand and Mangal Chand Meena is that they abetted/facilitated the commission of said gang rape upon prosecutrix 'A' by locking the door of the room from outside.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD
8. PW-10 prosecutrix 'A' deposed that she got married with one U in the year 2013 and have two children from said marriage, that she had a friendship with accused Satish two years prior to present FIR, that she met him in relation with her job as she was a single mother, having dispute with her husband and was living 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 8 separately from her husband on a rented accommodation.
8A. PW-10 further deposed that she had told accused Satish everything about her matrimonial dispute and he had also supported her, that he used to help her financially also, that she was in relationship with accused for two years and sexual relationship were also established between her and accused Satish on numerous occasion with her consent. She further deposed that on 21.07.2022, at about 08:00 pin, she received a call from accused Satish and he asked her to come him, that she wanted some money from him for admission of her son and he told her that he would give her money, and that she met accused Satish at Kirti Nagar metro station and from there they went to some place where sexual relationship were established between her and Satish with her consent.
8B. PW-10 prosecutrix further deposed that since, accused had duty at New Delhi Railway Station, he asked her to accompany him as he wanted to mark his attendance and thereafter promised to drop her at her home since it was late. She went on to depose that they reached at New Delhi Railway Station at around 11:00-12:00 in the night, that they reached at platform no. 8 or 7, that accused made her to sit in a room and went to mark his attendance, that after some time accused Satish came however, his friends namely Jagdish and Mangal also came, that no other friend of accused came.
8C. Prosecutrix further deposed that accused Satish wanted to leave with her for dropping her at her home but his friends stopped him, that thereafter, arguments started taking place between accused Satish and his other friends and quarrel took place between them, that thereafter, she got scared and made call at 112 number. She further deposed that police came at the spot and she told them that she wants to go home and therefore, she made call, however, they took her to police station, that she was made to sit in the police station and thereafter, police pressurized her to give a rape complaint against accused persons otherwise they will file case against her.
8D PW-10 prosecutrix further deposed that thereafter, police took her complaint Ex. PW10/A, however, no incident of rape/gang rape or wrongful confinement as mentioned from portion A to A of her complaint Ex. PW10/A took place against her, that police had got her medically examined vide MLC Ex PW2/P1 and she had given history of rape and gang rape at the instance of police to the concerned doctor. She deposed that no such incident as mentioned in the history point XI took place, that during medical examination, doctor might have 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 9 collected the exhibits, that her cloths were also seized by doctor.
8E. Prosecutrix further deposed that police had also obtained her signatures on few papers, that site plan Ex. PW10/B bears her signatures, however, she had signed the same at the instance of police, that arrest memo Fix PW10/C of accused Satish, arrest memo Ex. PW10/D of accused Vinod, arvest memo Ex. PW10/E of accused Jagdish and arrest memo Ex. PW10/F accused Mangal bear her signature at point A. She however deposed that she had signed the same at instance of police and accused were not arrested her presence or at her instance. 8F. PW-10 further deposed that her statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex. PW10/G was also recorded before Ld. MM, however, to offence of rape, gang rape or wrongful confinement took place against her as mentioned in her said statement and she had given the said statement at instance of police. She could not identify any accused except accused Satish 8G. The witness was cross-examined (with permission of the court) by ld. Addl. PP. During her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that accused Satish had called his friend i.e. accused Vinod in the room where she was sitting and locked the door from inside or that thereafter,....
8H. Prosecutrix further denied the suggestion that accused Satish and Vinod had hidden her lower and duppatta and kept her sitting there without lower or that thereafter accused i.e. accused Jagdish and Mangal or that thereafter all of them drank alcohol or that when she asked accused Satish to give her lower, he told her to establish sexual relationship with accused Mangal and Jagdish also promoted to give money to her.
XXX XXX XXX
15. In the instant case, as evident from record, the prosecutrix being the only eye witness to the alleged incident, did not support the prosecution version in the witness box and she categorically denied any incident of rape/gang rape and of wrongful confinement on the alleged date ot incident. She further categorically deposed that she was in consensual sexual relationship with accused Satish for two years and on the date of alleged incident also, consensual sexual relationship were established between them.
15A. The witness also deposed in no unclear terms that when arguments/quarrel started taking place between 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 10 accused Satish and his other friends (i.e. co-accused), she got scared and made call at 112 number. As per the witness, no incident of rape/gang rape or wrongful confinement as mentioned in complaint Ex. PW-10/A, statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW-10/G or in the history at point XI of her MLC Ex. PW-2/PI took place against her and she had made said allegations on being pressurized by police officials.
XXX XXX XXX
19. During further arguments, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that since FSL expert vide his opinion Ex. A-7 has categorically opined that the DNA exhibit '1' (blood sample of accused Satish) and exhibit '2a' (blood sample of accused Vinod) are matching with the DNA profile generated from the various exhibits of prosecutrix, therefore it stands proved that sexual intercourse had taken place between accused Satish/Vinod and prosecutrix on the said day and the version of prosecutrix that no rape took place is unbelievable. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP are noted only to be rejected as the FSI result Ex. A-7, at best, may establish that sexual intercourse took place between accused Satish/ Vinod and prosecutrix on the date of alleged incident. However that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the said sexual intercourse was forceful as alleged by prosecution."
20. Since prosecutrix has refused to endorse the prosecution version in the witness box, therefore, entire case of prosecution erumbles and nothing survives thereafter. Hence, this court has no hesitation in holding that prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused persons deserve to be acquitted in the instant case.
21. Accordingly, accused Satish, Vinod, Jagdish Chand and Mangal Chand Meena stand acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
17. From the above, the involvement of accused Mangal Chand Meena in the present case stands alleged and sought to be established by the prosecution on the basis of the initial version of the prosecutrix, the surrounding circumstances, and the conduct of the accused persons. As per the complaint Ex. PW-10/A and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC Ex. PW-10/G, Mangal Chand Meena was present at the relevant time and place at 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 11 New Delhi Railway Station along with co-accused Satish, Vinod and Jagdish Chand, and all of them acted in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecutrix had specifically alleged that after being taken to a room at the railway station, she was wrongfully confined and subjected to sexual exploitation by the accused persons, and that Mangal Chand Meena remained present, participated in the sequence of events and facilitated the commission of the offence by not intervening and by supporting the acts of the other accused. His presence at the spot is not in dispute, as he was apprehended as an accused in the same occurrence and his arrest memo Ex. PW-10/F bears the signatures of the prosecutrix, which prima facie indicates his connection with the incident. The prosecution case further shows that the accused persons had assembled together at the place of occurrence late in the night, that a quarrel took place among them, and that the prosecutrix felt so threatened and intimidated that she was compelled to make a call at 112, which led to police intervention. The fact that Mangal Chand Meena was part of this group at the relevant time and place, and that the prosecutrix initially attributed a role to him in her complaint and judicial statement, is relied upon by the prosecution to show that he shared a common intention with the co-accused and was involved in the occurrence forming the subject matter of the present case. The subsequent retraction by the prosecutrix during trial, according to the prosecution, does not completely wipe out the allegations made at the earliest point of time, and her initial statements, the contemporaneous police action, and the overall sequence of events are pressed into service to contend 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 12 that Mangal Chand Meena was not a mere bystander but was an involved accused in the alleged incident.
18. The Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time, and the fact that the applicant was in judicial custody, exercised powers under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The authority recorded its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry. The satisfaction so recorded cannot be said to be mechanical or arbitrary, particularly when the allegations involved moral turpitude and serious criminal misconduct at the workplace.
19. The contention of the applicant that mere registration of an FIR cannot justify dispensation of inquiry is misplaced in the peculiar facts of the present case. The seriousness of the allegations, the location of the incident, and the potential impact on the administration clearly justified invocation of Rule 14(ii). The scope of judicial review in such matters is limited, and this Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority unless the same is shown to be mala fide or based on no material, which is not the case here.
20. Although the applicant has since been acquitted by the Trial Court, the acquittal has been recorded primarily on account of the prosecutrix not supporting the prosecution case. The Trial Court itself observed that sexual intercourse between the prosecutrix and some of the accused stood established, and the acquittal was not on a finding of complete falsity of allegations but on failure of the 2026.01.14 LALIT GOSAIN 16:39:16+05'30' 13 prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Such an acquittal does not automatically invalidate the disciplinary action already taken, particularly when the action was based on the prevailing circumstances and material available at the relevant time.
21. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant availed all statutory remedies. His appeal and revision were duly considered and rejected by the competent authorities by passing reasoned and speaking orders. No violation of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution or Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, is made out.
22. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the competent authority took a justified decision in dispensing with the departmental inquiry and imposing the penalty of removal from service. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/lg/
2026.01.14
LALIT GOSAIN
16:39:16+05'30'