Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Rakesh Kumar vs Western Railway on 21 November, 2025
1 OA No.973/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.973/2023
Dated this Friday the 21st November, 2025
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (J)
Rakesh Kumar
(son of Rajniti Singh) Date of Birth:
20.02.1972, age 51 years 07 months,
Working as : Secretary (Public Grievance),
Western Railway, Mumbai, Group "A" Post,
Mumbai in the office of General Manager,
Western Railway, Headquarters' Office,
M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020
And residing at : Block No.K. House No.89,
Badhwar Park Railway Colony, Colaba,
Mumbai - 400 005,
Cell:09869791177,
Email id:[email protected] - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri R.G. Walia)
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Versus
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone=
30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc,
PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=
Milan Jackson Alphanso
Alphanso
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
1) General Manager
Western Railway, Headquarters' Office,
M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
2) S.D.G.M.
Vigilance Department, Headquarters'
Office, Western Railway, M.K. Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020. -
Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.K. Rajpurohit a/w Smt J.K. Rehel )
Order reserved on : 08th August, 2025
Order pronounced on : 21st November, 2025
2 OA No.973/2023
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:
"8(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the case which led to the passing of the Disagreement Note dated 28.08.2023 i.e. Annx. "A1" and after going through its propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the said Disagreement Note dated 28.08.2023.
(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased hold and declare that the said Disagreement Note dated 28.08.2023 has been in an illegal and Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso arbitrary manner and accordingly order Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document and direct the respondents to close Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the case against the applicant with regard to the departmental chargesheet dated 23.09.2016 and extend all consequential benefits of promotion, fixation of pay, arrears/difference of salary etc.
(c) Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) Costs of this Original Application may be provided for."
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in the OA are that he belongs 3 OA No.973/2023 to 1998 batch of Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) and is working as Secretary in the Western Railway. He was posted on deputation to the post of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC) from January, 2014 to August, 2014. Based on a complaint by an agent to the CBI, he was arrested and subsequently released on bail. He was repatriated to the Western Railway from CBFC in 2014. A charge sheet came to be issued on 23.09.2016. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. After Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document examining 10 witnesses who appeared before Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the Inquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer both were of the view that no charge can be proved against the applicant. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 26.12.2017 with the findings of charges 'Not Proved'. However, the Disciplinary Authority appointed a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer 4 OA No.973/2023 on 18.11.2020. The Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 26.10.2021 requested to be excused from being a part of an inquiry on the ground that the second inquiry is not provided under the Railway Rules. After lapse of almost two years, the Disciplinary Authority has issued the impugned disagreement note dated 28.08.2023 i.e almost 6 years after the submission of report by the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges against the applicant are not proved. 2.1 It has been averred that the act of the General Manager in issuing disagreement Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document note dated 28.08.2023 is biased, prejudiced, Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 arbitrary and malicious which has been communicated to the applicant along with covering letter dated 31.08.2023 and received by the applicant on 05.09.2023. It has been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has acted due to extraneous factors which are not legal or covered by any existing rules/guidelines of Railway Servants 5 OA No.973/2023 (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968, Railway Vigilance Manual and DoPT Hand Book. Western Railway Vigilance is also party to this illegal and arbitrary act of issuing Disagreement Note. The said Disagreement Note was not prepared by the Disciplinary Authority and the same was prepared by Western Railway Vigilance even though the Disciplinary Authority, as per the knowledge of the applicant had fully agreed and accepted the Inquiry Officer's report dated 26.12.2017.
2.2 The applicant submits that he Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document approached the Tribunal at the stage of Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 issuance of Disagreement Note. As a bare perusal of the Disagreement Note would reveal that in an arbitrary manner, the Disagreement Note categorically stated that evidence adduced and produced during the course of the Inquiry is not acceptable and statements as recorded by the CBI during the course of the investigation has to be relied upon to prove 6 OA No.973/2023 the charges against the applicant. Thus, the Disagreement Note is only reproducing the charges to issue the said impugned Disagreement Note completely ignoring the evidence on record. The Presenting Officer who acted on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority in his very brief i.e. Presenting Officer's Brief dated 06.12.2017 had categorically concluded as under:
"6.... Hence the charge leveled against Charge Officer under Rule 3.1(i)(ii) and (iii) of Railway Conduct Rules, 1966 stands not substantiated due to PW's statement before the CBI and during the inquiry is contradictory and gives benefit to Charge Officer. Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso All Prosecution Witnesses not turn up, Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document including investigating CBI Inspector. Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Only 10 Prosecution Witnesses attended the inquiry."
Thus, the Presenting Officer who was acting on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority himself after looking into the evidence on record in great detail concluded that the charges leveled against the applicant are not substantiated.
7 OA No.973/20232.3 The applicant submits that the inquiry Officer submitted his report way back on 26.12.2017 and after great analysis of the evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer concluded that charges against the applicant were not proved.
2.4 The Inquiry Officer's report has been communicated to the applicant alongwith the impugned Disagreement Note dated 28.08.2023 and a bare perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report and the Disagreement Note would reveal that in fact the Disciplinary Authority does not disagree with the analysis of evidence as Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document analyzed by the Inquiry Officer on the basis Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 of evidence adduced and produced during the course of the inquiry but to somehow or the other victimize the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority as an afterthought only placed reliance on the statement of persons who have during the course of the inquiry categorically denied making any statement as relied upon by the Disciplinary 8 OA No.973/2023 Authority.
2.5 The applicant submits that the present case is a classic case of abuse and misuse of power and the said Disagreement Note is not based on any relevant material whatsoever which the Inquiry Officer has not dealt in a judicious and proper manner. 2.6 It has been submitted that another aspect of the present case is that the said Inquiry Officer's report was submitted on 26.12.2017 and it was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to have acted within the four corners of the Law and decided the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document departmental enquiry case within the time Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 prescribed. The Disciplinary Authority has taken over 5 years to now issue an illegal and arbitrary Disagreement Note. Thus, on account of delay itself the said Disagreement Note deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2.7 The applicant placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court 9 OA No.973/2023 of Delhi and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 415, which clearly lays down the law that the Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to conclude any domestic/departmental enquiry within a period of 6 months. As per the Railway Board's order dated 24.04.1995 on submission of the Inquiry Officer's report obtaining CVC's second stage advice, 45 days are provided and thereafter copy of Inquiry Officer's report has to be supplied within a period of 10 days to the concerned Charged Officer.
2.8 The applicant has submitted that in Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document an illegal and arbitrary manner there has Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 been serious manipulation and events which have taken place beyond the statutory rules inasmuch as, as stated above the Inquiry Officer's report is dated 26.12.2017 and as per the knowledge of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority had completely agreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer while forwarding the case to the CVC for the second 10 OA No.973/2023 stage advice sometime in the year 2018. However, due to interference by external agencies the Disciplinary Authority in an illegal and arbitrary manner had directed holding of a de-novo inquiry vide its order dated 18.11.2020 even though there is no rule of law which permits holding of a de-novo inquiry by changing both the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer.
2.9 It has been submitted that the applicant was shocked to have received such an order which was clearly at the behest of external factors and at the behest of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document external agencies. The applicant immediately Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 protested against the said act of the Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dated 09.12.2020. Finally, the Inquiry Officer appointed to conduct de-novo inquiry himself on 26.10.2021 informed the respondents that de-novo inquiry is not stipulated under the Rules and thus, he may be excused to conduct the concerned inquiry. According to the 11 OA No.973/2023 applicant, once again, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Inquiry Officer and forwarded the case to the CVC primarily once again holding that the Inquiry Officer's report dated 26.12.2017 should be accepted and the applicant be exonerated. This was the 3rd time that the CVC was consulted after the Inquiry Officer's report.
2.10 The applicant submits that for the reasons best known to the respondents, when de-novo inquiry could not be conducted a false, slip shoddy and unjustified Disagreement Note dated 28.08.2023 has been Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document issued to hold that the charges against the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 applicant are tentatively proved. The Disciplinary Authority who is duty bound to act in a fair and proper manner can not be allowed to manipulate the provisions of Rules and Law with regard to evidence adduced and produced during the course of the enquiry to in fact completely ignore the same to issue the said impugned Disagreement Note dated 12 OA No.973/2023 28.08.2023.
2.11 It has been submitted that the unjustified and delayed action of the Disciplinary Authority against the Railway Board's order/letter dated 24.04.1995 has and will cause serious harm and prejudice to the applicant if the Disciplinary Authority is permitted to pursue his illegal and arbitrary Disagreement Note.
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and contested the OA. It has been contended that while the applicant was on Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document deputation as CEO, CBFC, Mumbai in the year Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 2014, he used private agent for collecting bribe for issuing Censor certificate.
3.1 It has been submitted that Regular departmental action of Major penalty proceedings was advised by Vigilance/Western Railway as per Board's advice vide letter dated 19.07.2016 along with the draft 13 OA No.973/2023 charges. The same was acknowledged by applicant on 28.09.2016. The applicant did not submit his defence even after 6 months.
Reminder was sent to him for the same on 11.04.2017. Since, there was no response from the applicant, case was put up to GM for appointment of IO/PO on 20.06.2017. Shri A.K. Verma, Retd. GM/SER was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 23.06.2017 and subsequently SF-7 and SF-8 were issued on 28.06.2017 and 03.07.2017 respectively.
3.2 It has been submitted that a letter was received from Inquiry Officer dated Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document 23.07.2017 whereby it was stated that the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 applicant insisted on additional documents and thereby the enquiry process was delayed. On 07.11.2017, nomination for Defence Counsel was received. The IO submitted his report dated 26.12.2017 on 01.01.2018 stating that all the charges appearing in the charge sheet are not proved. The report was put up to DA, viz. GM/Western Railway on 10.01.2018. The 14 OA No.973/2023 report was sent to the Railway Board on 28.05.2018 alongwith provisional view of DA on the inquiry report. Board's letter dated 23.07.2018 sought the reasons for provisional decision of DA and Vigilance comments. The same was put up to GM on 13.08.2018.
Provisional views along with the reasons for the same were sent to Railway Board by Vigilance department on 30.10.2018 seeking CVC's 2nd stage advice.
3.3 It has been submitted that CVC vide their letter dated 05.08.2020 had advised for conducting 'De-Novo' inquiry by appointing Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document new IO/PO. This was communicated by Board on Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 20.08.2020. Order received from Vigilance for 'De-novo' inquiry vide letter dated 26.10.2020. Accordingly, new IO - Shri Aditya Kumar Mittal, Retd. ME, Railway Board and PO
- Shri Arman Ulla, CVI/CCG were appointed vide SF-7 dated 18.11.2020, SF-8 dated 18.11.2020 respectively. Against this decision, the applicant had submitted 15 OA No.973/2023 representation dated 09.12.2020 challenging the 'De-novo' inquiry to IO & Railway Administration which was thoroughly examined and decided to continue with the 'De-novo' inquiry. The applicant was, accordingly, replied on 15.02.2021. The IO was also advised to continue with enquiry vide letter dated 18.03.2021. The applicant repeatedly made representations on 18.03.2021 and 18.05.2021 which was replied on 19.04.2021 and 01.09.2021 respectively. The IO vide his letter dated 26.10.2021 expressed his inability to conduct the enquiry. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document SDGM/Western Railway with the approval of GM Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 had referred the case to PED/Vigilance for further advice vide letter dated 18.01.2022. 3.4 It has been further submitted that the matter was referred by Board to CVC and CVC has advised 'Major Penalty proceedings' against the applicant vide letter dated 15.05.2023 and the same was communicated by Railway Board on 26.05.2023. This was 16 OA No.973/2023 communicated to DAR/Gaz./WR vide letter dated 30.06.2023 for implementing the advice of CVC. The same was put up to GM on 14.07.2023.
The DA i.e GM recorded Disagreement Note and accordingly memorandum of Disagreement dated 28.08.2023 was issued by GM. Accordingly, Disciplinary Authority i.e. GM/WR had handed over the Inquiry report along with the memorandum of disagreement to the applicant on 31.08.2023. This was acknowledged by the applicant on 05.09.2023. The applicant had requested for 30 days extension time to submit his defence till 04.10.2023. However, Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document he did not submit his defence. He was advised Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 again on 04.10.2023 to provide defence within 15 days, but he did not give his defence.
Case was put up to Disciplinary Authority i.e. GM on 06.11.2023. The Disciplinary Authority i.e GM/WR had forwarded the case to the Railway Board establishment along with proposed Major penalty for implementation or otherwise, vide letter dated 16.11.2023. The 17 OA No.973/2023 applicant approached this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2023 stayed Disagreement Note of the Disciplinary Authority till next date of hearing. The file has been returned back by Railway Board on 05.12.2023.
3.5 It has been submitted that the challenge made by the applicant to the 'Disagreement Note' dated 28.08.2023 is not maintainable in view of provision of Section 20(1) and (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the applicant has not satisfied this Tribunal that he had availed of all the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document remedies available to him under the relevant Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 service rules as to redressal of grievances. As per Section 20(2)(a) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the 'disagreement note' of the Disciplinary Authority, which cannot be termed at all as 'a final order' issued by the Disciplinary Authority as no 'final order' of punishment has yet been issued by 18 OA No.973/2023 the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the OA filed by the applicant is pre-mature and hence on this legal ground alone, the present OA may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice. On merits also, the 'Disagreement Note' of the Disciplinary Authority challenged in this OA is not maintainable as the reasons recorded in the same are legally and factually correct as the Disciplinary Authority has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against the applicant have been 'proved' on the basis of 'theory or preponderance of probability' and Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document cogent and legal reasoning has been duly Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 given by the Disciplinary Authority in the Disagreement Note which is sought to be challenged in this matter.
3.6 Regarding the reliance of the applicant on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra), it has been submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 24 and 31 of the aforesaid 19 OA No.973/2023 judgment has observed the time limit which has not been disputed by the respondents.
However, the delay caused in this case so far as the respondents is concerned, it was purely procedural and administrative and it was not with any malafide intentions.
3.7 It has been submitted that the delay caused in finalizing the DE against the applicant is also attributable to the applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant has made very serious allegations against the respondents terming the disciplinary enquiry or disciplinary action Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document being taken as 'manipulation and beyond the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 statutory rules', without giving any cogent factual or legal reasons in support of such serious allegations made against the respondents.
On the basis of the aforesaid factual and legal submissions, the OA filed by the applicant may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.20 OA No.973/2023
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder controverting the contentions made by the respondents in their reply.
4.1 It has been submitted that the Disagreement Note has been issued after a delay of almost 5 years 8 months from the date of the Inquiry Officer's Report and on the issues raised by the applicant the applicant already stood exonerated when the Disciplinary Authority reiterated his earlier view to agree with the Inquiry Officer's Report and for the third time when the matter was sent back to the CVC in an illegal and Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document arbitrary manner, only then, the said Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Disagreement Note came to be issued at the behest of the vigilance. The Disciplinary Authority has no authority or Jurisdiction to issue the Disagreement Note once he had already concluded for the 2nd or 3rd time that he agreed with the Inquiry Officer's Report and the Applicant should be exonerated. The stand of the Respondents is 21 OA No.973/2023 that the Original Application is premature is absolutely denied and this is a classic case of somehow or the other to punish the Applicant and nothing else.
4.2 It has been submitted that the applicant has not delayed the inquiry or any procedure after submission of the Inquiry Officer's Report. It is absolutely malicious, misleading and a complete falsehood to even remotely suggest that the applicant has delayed any process at any point of time. The fact is that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.12.2017 and it took the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Respondents about 5 years and 08 months to Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 issue a Disagreement Note. The decision of de-novo inquiry on the face of the record was not only illegal but absolutely against the Rules. There is no provision for De-Novo inquiry at all either by changing the Inquiry Officer or Presenting Officer or otherwise. The Inquiry Officer who came to be appointed himself clearly stated "5..... But since De- 22 OA No.973/2023 Novo inquiry is not stipulated in IRVM, I may be excused to conduct the above inquiry." (pg 449 of the OA). The Respondents maliciously and only to mislead and misguide the Tribunal have suggested in their reply that because the applicant made representation against the illegal act of the respondents to conduct De-
Novo inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (Second Inquiry Officer) was appointed to conduct the inquiry and thus he 'showed his inability' to conduct the inquiry. The second Inquiry Officer himself realizing that there is no provision for De-Novo inquiry excused Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document himself.
Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 4.3 It has been submitted that the respondents have unnecessarily raised issues prior to the submission of the Inquiry Officer's Report dated 26.12.2017, which is not an issue involved in any manner in the present case. From 26.12.2017 or 1.1.2018 till 28.08.2023 (date of Disagreement Note), there has been no proper explanation at all 23 OA No.973/2023 to justify a delay of about 5 (five) years 8(eight) months. Moreover, this is a classic case of abuse and misuse of powers and authorities and nothing else in as much as the Presenting Officer himself in his brief i.e. prosecution brief dated 6.12.2017 himself clearly stated that the charges levelled against the Applicant are not substantiated at all. (Pg 98 & 99). Once the Presenting Officer himself on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority concludes that the charges are not proved, it is not understood as to what else remains to be looked into by Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Authority.
4.4 In the above circumstances, the malicious act of the Respondents to conduct a De-Novo inquiry by appointing a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer was utmost mischievous, classic case of abuse and misuse of powers and authorities and nothing else and highhandedness on the part of the 24 OA No.973/2023 Respondents. Instead of accepting the gross error and delay caused by the Respondents in the present matter to the prejudice of the applicant, the Respondents have tried to maligning the Applicant which is highly condemnable and nothing else. The General Manager had infact agreed with the Inquiry Officer's Report and after a period of 5½ years to that issued a Disagreement Note which is absolutely an act of victimizing the Applicant and nothing else. The Disagreement Note is based upon certain statements made before the CBI which is not admissible at all Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document and the persons making the said statements Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 have not even been presented before the inquiry for the Applicant to in turn cross- examine them. Mr. Sarvesh Jaiswal was never produced during the course of the inquiry. Further, with regard to call recording, nothing was proved during the course of inquiry by presenting any proper and legal evidence oral or otherwise. The Disagreement 25 OA No.973/2023 Note which basically consist of 3 paragraphs are only highlighting "crucial record of CBI"
which has no evidentiary value during the inquiry, nothing was forthcoming to justify or prove the so-called CBI crucial records by leading any proper oral evidence. Thus, it is clear that the present case is of no evidence and the impugned Disagreement Note has been issued to the Applicant in a casual, vindictive and malicious manner. The respondents in their reply have quoted para 209.6 of IRVM (Indian Railway Vigilance Manual) 2006 which has been superseded by Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document IRVM (Indian Railway Vigilance Manual) 2018 Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 and para 209.6 is NOT IN EXISTENCE at all. The respondents have consciously tried to mislead and misguide this Tribunal and nothing else by quoting a wrong and incorrect Manual of 2006 which was superseded by Manual of 2018 which was further amended vide Railway Board letter dated 28.09.2020. 26 OA No.973/2023 4.5 It has been further submitted that in para 3(viii) of the reply submitted by the respondents, it is stated that after the Inquiry Officer submitted his report, the same was put up to the Disciplinary Authority on 10.01.2018. In para 3(ix), it is stated that report was sent to Railway Board on 28.5.2018 along with view of DA on Inquiry Officer's Report. It is clear but hidden from the Court that the Disciplinary Authority at that relevant time had agreed with the Inquiry Officer's Report and thus, there was no question of issuing any Disagreement Note. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document In para 3(x), the Respondents stated that the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Railway Board vide its letter dated 23.07.2018 sought reasons for provisional decision of DA on Vigilance Comments and after obtaining the same, the same was forwarded to CVC for 2nd Stage Advice. It has been submitted that under what circumstances and under what Rule Vigilance Comments was asked for is a mystery. In any case, it was 27 OA No.973/2023 after almost 2 years i.e. on 5.8.2020, De- Novo inquiry was directed which anyway was illegal and wrong. The Disciplinary Authority once again agreed with the Inquiry Officer's Report (this fact is not denied by the Respondents) and thus, this should have been the final decision of the Disciplinary Authority and in fact has to be treated as a final call or decision in the matter of Chargesheet dated 23.09.2016. Further, in para 3(xv) of the reply, it is stated that as the IO vide his letter dated 26.10.2021 expressed his inability to conduct the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document inquiry, SDGM with the approval of General Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Manager had referred the matter to PED Vigilance for further advise vide letter dated 18.01.2022. This procedure is also illegal and wrong and takes away the absolute independence of the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision on his own. Further, in para 3(xvi) of the reply, it is stated that the CVC has advised major penalty proceedings. 28 OA No.973/2023 The Applicant does not understand what is meant by Major Penalty Proceedings as Major Penalty Proceedings started with the issuance of Chargesheet dated 23.09.2016 and in the following paragraphs, it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority then generated/issued the Disagreement Note. The above procedure clearly proves manipulation, victimization and classic case of abuse and misuse of powers and authorities and nothing else to somehow or the other harass the Applicant and nothing else.
4.6 It has been submitted that in para Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document 3(xvi) of the reply, the Respondents have Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 stated that the CVC has advised Major Penalty Proceedings which is completely false, untrue and misleading. The fact is that the CVC has advised imposition of major penalty as per knowledge of the Applicant and, accordingly, the process of issuance of Disagreement Note has been initiated. This itself shows that the Disagreement Note which has been issued 29 OA No.973/2023 to the Applicant is not only tainted, issued under coercion and duress due to the pressure of the Vigilance, but also it is a fact that the same is a post decisional hearing decision and nothing else as the CVC has already stated imposition of major penalty on the Applicant. Each and every action against the Applicant has been taken as per whims and fancies of the vigilance and even though the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Inquiry Officer's report and exonerated the applicant, still the Disagreement Note was issued in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document The manner in which the Disagreement Note has Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 been issued also makes it clear that on whims and fancies, the applicant is being victimized and harassed. Moreover, neither the CVC nor any other authority at any point of time has given reason as to why the Inquiry Officer's report is not correct. Even the CVC's 2nd stage advice has not been annexed with the reply and never 30 OA No.973/2023 communication to the applicant. This is also clearly violation of principle of natural justice.
4.7 It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the Disagreement Note would completely show and prove that the same completely lacks any application of mind whatsoever. Thus, in the circumstances, the present case is of no evidence and the Inquiry Officer's report read with Presenting Officer's brief, the applicant with greatest respect has to be exonerated.
4.8 The applicant has annexed the copy of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Railway Board's letter dated 28.09.2020 on Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the subject of Amendment No.3 for amendment in para No.607.8 of Indian Railway Vigilance Manual (2018)which deals with the issue where Disciplinary Authority proposed action which is contrary to CVC advice.
5. The respondents in turn have filed additional affidavit reiterating the contention made in the reply and no new facts 31 OA No.973/2023 have been submitted in the OA.
6. During arguments, learned counsel for the parties have argued their case based on pleadings and judicial pronouncements.
7. Shri Walia, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned disagreement note is illegal and not maintainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that the first Inquiry Officer in his report dated 26th December, 2017 has given a clear cut finding that charges are not proved. The then General Manager, Western Railway, who was the Disciplinary Authority, has accepted Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document the report of the Inquiry Officer on 17th Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 October, 2018. However, the CVC advised de- novo inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The new Inquiry Officer was appointed on 18th November, 2020. However, the new Inquiry Officer has recused himself for conducting de-novo inquiry on the ground that there is no provision for the fresh de-novo inquiry as per the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual 32 OA No.973/2023 (IRVM). Thereafter, the matter was again referred to the CVC, who advised, for disagreement note. Therefore, the impugned disagreement note has been issued at the behest of CVC and is not the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. He submitted that the applicant was never provided the copy of the second stage advise of the CVC. He submitted that even the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority has said that there is no evidence against the applicant.
7.1 Shri Walia submitted that there is delay of 5 years and 8 months from the date Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document of submission of the inquiry report by the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Inquiry Officer and issuance of disagreement note. Thus, it is hit by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra). He submitted that as per the extant rules, the Disciplinary Authority has to take decision on the Inquiry Officer's report within 15 days but here disagreement note has been issued after 5 years and 8 months. 33 OA No.973/2023 7.2 Mr. Walia submitted that delay in completion of inquiry proceedings has caused lot of prejudice to the applicant in as much as the applicant has suffered in the matter of his promotion to the next grade i.e. SAG (Senior Administrative Grade) for over 6 years and all his juniors are wither working in SAG or HAG grade. He further submitted that during the pendency of the OA, the applicant has been compulsory retired under Section 56(j).
7.3 Shri Walia submitted that the disagreement note has been issued on the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document basis of certain statements made before the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 CBI which was not admissible as the said witnesses were never produced during the inquiry and the applicant had no chance to cross-examine them.
7.4 Shri Walia further submitted that the call records which have been alleged by the CBI have never been produced during the inquiry inspite of Inquiry Officer having 34 OA No.973/2023 requested the CBI to produce the same. He submitted that the Disagreement Note which basically consist of 3 paragraphs are only highlighting "crucial record of CBI" which has no evidentiary value during the inquiry. 7.5 Shri Walia has submitted that the respondents have quoted para 209.6 of IRVM (Indian Railway Vigilance Manual) 2006 which has been superseded by IRVM (Indian Railway Vigilance Manual) 2018 and the said para is not in existence at all. The respondents have consciously concealed this fact to mislead and misguide this Tribunal by quoting a wrong Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document and outdated manual of 2006 which was no more Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 in existence as the same has been superseded by the IRVM 2018 which has been further amended vide Railway Board letter dated 28 th September, 2020.
7.6 It has been submitted that the then Disciplinary Authority accepted the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The Railway Board vide their letter dated 23 rd 35 OA No.973/2023 July, 2018 sought the reasons for provisional decision of Disciplinary Authority on vigilance comments and after obtaining the same, the same was forwarded to the CVC for 2nd stage advice. However, the respondents have failed to explain under what circumstances and under what rules, vigilance comments were asked for and therefore, the same is a mystery. He further argued that when the New Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 26th October, 2021 expressed his inability to conduct the inquiry, SDGM with the approval of General Manager had referred Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document the matter to PED Vigilance for further Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 advise vide letter dated 18th January, 2022 which is illegal and takes away the absolute independence of the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision on his own.
7.7 Shri Walia further argued that the CVC has advised major penalty proceedings which shows abuse and misuse of power of the authorities. He submitted that the tossing of 36 OA No.973/2023 the case to the CVC is prohibited under the Rules. The de-novo inquiry which was directed by the CVC has been disagreed by the Disciplinary Authority reiterating the exoneration of the applicant and, therefore, there was no question of sending the matter again to the CVC.
7.8 Shri Walia submitted that every action against the applicant has been taken as per whims and fancies of the vigilance inspite of the fact that the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Inquiry Officer's report and exonerated the applicant. Still Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document the disagreement note was issued in an Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 illegal and arbitrary manner.
7.9 Shri Walia submitted that since the disagreement note has been issued with the direction of the CVC, it amounts to post decisional hearing which is not permissible under the rules. He submitted that the respondents have failed to explain under what rules, they have sent the matter time and 37 OA No.973/2023 again to the CVC for their opinion and acted as per the advise of the CVC. Therefore, there was no independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and whole process was tainted as it was being dictated by the Vigilance Director of the Railway Board as per the direction of the CVC. 7.10 Shri Walia has submitted a copy of CVC letter instructions No.99/VGL/66 dated 28th September, 2000 on the subject 'Consultation with the CVC-Making available a copy of the CVC's advice to the concerned employee' wherein it has been specifically Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document held that a copy of the commission's first Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 stage advice may be made available to the concerned employee along with a copy of the charge sheet served upon him, for their information. However, when the CVC's second stage advice is obtained, a copy thereof may be made available to the concerned employee, along with the IO's report, to give him an opportunity to make representation against 38 OA No.973/2023 IO's findings and the CVC's advice, if he desires to do so. He submits that the respondents have violated even the CVC's instructions dated 28th September, 2000 by not providing him a copy of the CVC second stage advice.
8 Shri Walia has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 591, wherein it has been held that non-communication of UPSC report accepted by the Disciplinary Authority without the delinquent employee having been Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' heard, it amounts to violation of principles Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 of natural justice and, therefore, the order of the Disciplinary Authority was non- sustainable. He submits that in the case under consideration the applicant was never provided the copy of the advise of the CVC which formed the basis for issuing the disagreement note and, therefore, the same is hit by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court 39 OA No.973/2023 in the case of S.N. Narula (supra). 8.1 Shri Walia has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 713, wherein concept of fair play in disciplinary action is the basis. He submitted that the chain of events in the case at hand will show that there was no fairness in the procedure adopted by the applicant for issuance of disagreement note and thus it was a clear violation of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso principles of natural justice.
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 8.2 Shri Walia has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 wherein it was held that decision in the case of S.N. Narula was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view as is settled by a series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 40 OA No.973/2023 8.3 Shri Walia has further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Another, (1993) 1 SCC 13, wherein it was held that non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of charged officer without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied on, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' just inquiry.
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 8.4 He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Limited vs. The Workmen and Others, 1971 (2) SCC 617 wherein it was held that if a letter or other document is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the enquiry the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof 41 OA No.973/2023 be filed and opportunity afforded to the opposite party who challenges this fact.
Therefore, the witnesses who made submissions before the CBI were required to be produced before the Inquiry Officer and were required to be cross-examined by the applicant.
In view of the above facts, Shri Walia submitted that impugned communication should be quashed and set aside and the Original Application should be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Rajpurohit vehemently defended the case of the respondents. He submitted that the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Officer on 26.12.2017. The applicant made representation on 28.05.2021 and 11.10.2021. Thus, the delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings was not attributable to the respondents alone but there was delay on the part of the applicant also. He submitted that the disagreement note is only in a form of show cause notice issued to the applicant 42 OA No.973/2023 and not an order, therefore, it cannot be challenged by the applicant till a formal order is passed.
9.1 Mr. RajPurohit further submitted that disagreement note is a part of process of inquiry proceedings. He submitted that the view of the Disciplinary Authority that inquiry report was acceptable was only an internal noting and not an order. Therefore, the noting by the first Disciplinary Authority that inquiry report was acceptable cannot be challenged by the applicant as it was not communicated to the charged officer. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document 9.2 Mr. Rajpurohit further submitted that Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the Tribunal cannot go into the aspect of the disagreement note. He submitted that the opportunity was given to the applicant to make representation against the disagreement note. Section 19 of AT Act, 1985 provides that only an order can be challenged and not a show cause notice. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of 43 OA No.973/2023 Rajasthan in the case of Dr.Nidhi Mehrotra Vs. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan & others, CWP No.2230/2017 dated 17.02.2017. 9.3 He has further argued that the 2nd Disciplinary Authority who took over charge from first Disciplinary Authority can change the view of the first Disciplinary Authority and subjective view of one Disciplinary Authority can always be changed by the views of the another Disciplinary Authority. 9.4 Mr. Rajpurohit further submitted that the applicant has not availed alternate Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document remedy available to him by making Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 representation against the disagreement note and, therefore, the O.A. is premature and hit by Section 20 of the AT Act and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9.5 Mr. Rajpurohit further submitted that there was sufficient material on record before the 2nd Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the disagreement note. He 44 OA No.973/2023 further submitted that the applicant is required to demonstrate as to what prejudice has been caused to him due to delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
He has submitted that the delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings has not resulted in denial of promotion to the applicant.
10. Mr. Rajpurohit has placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madras and Another Vs. F.X. Fernando, (1994) 2 SCC 746;
(ii) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Hello Home Education Society, Civil Appeal Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Nos.3659-3660 of 2023 decided on Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document 11.01.2024;
Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
(iii) State of Punjab Vs. Khemi Ram, (1969) 3 SCC 28;
(iv) Mahadeo & Ors. Vs. Smt.Sovan
Devi & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 730;
(v) Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs.
T.V. Patel, 2007(114) FLR1;
(vi) State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Vs. Akhilesh Jha & Anr., Civil Appeal No.5153/2021, decided on 06.09.2021;
(vii) Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Prabhu Diwan Lute, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9468;
(viii) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Vijay Malhan Vs. UOI and Ors., W.P.(C0 2903/2003 decided on 13.10.2022;
45 OA No.973/2023(ix) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in the case of Dr.Nidhi Mehrotra Vs. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan & others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2230/2017 decided on 17.02.2017;
(x) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Union of India Vs. A.W. Umredkar, Writ Petition No.6173/2006 decided on 07.02.2020;
(xi) Order of C.A.T., Principal Bench in the case of S.K. Rai Vs. Delhi Jal Board & others in O.A.No.1370/2016 decided on 19.04.2016;
(xi) Order of C.A.T., Patna Bench in the case of Suresh Prasad Vs. The Addl. Postmaster General, Bihar Circle Patna, in O.A.No.111/1989 decided on 21.02.1990.
11. Shri Walia in his rejoinder submitted Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso that the timeline for the various steps has Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 been laid down by the Railway Rules (page 396 of OA) for completion of the inquiry has been violated by the respondents. He submitted that as per the model timeline framed by the Railway Board it provides for 45 days for seeking 2nd stage CVC advice and further 10 days for communication of Inquiry Officer's report. Taking the same into account, the inquiry report should have reached the 46 OA No.973/2023 applicant by 23.02.2018. However, the same was sent to him after a long gap of more than 5 years. He submitted that the first CVC report says to do de novo inquiry (page 453), but the 2nd stage CVC advice was not provided to the applicant. He submitted that it is clear from Para (viii) to para (xvii) (page 452 to 454) that there was delay on the part of the respondents, therefore, argument of the respondents that there was some delay on the part of the applicant is totally incorrect. He submitted that the delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document has been highly prejudicial to the applicant.
Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 The applicant has suffered in the matter of his promotion to the next grade i.e. SAG (Senior Administrative Grade) for over 6 years and all his juniors are either working in SAG or HAG Grade as per his knowledge. 11.1 Shri R.G. Walia, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the disagreement note is based on the material which was not 47 OA No.973/2023 produced during the inquiry proceedings. He submitted that the disagreement note has been issued without application of mind. He submitted that the disagreement note is based on the statement of Mr.Sarvesh Jaiswal which was the key witness of the prosecution, however, he was never produced before the Inquiry Officer. He submitted that the witness no.5 whose statement has been used for issue of disagreement note was made before the CBI and, therefore, the same is not admissible as evidence. He submitted that the Presiding Officer's brief (page 82) Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document dated 06.12.2017 proves that there was no Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 reason to issue disagreement note. He submitted that the evidence of 2 most important witnesses i.e. Pravin T. Mohare and Shripati Mishra who have categorically stated that the applicant never demanded or accepted any bribe from any person has been ignored. 11.2 Shri Walia further submitted that Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & 48 OA No.973/2023 Appeal) Rules, 1968 (page 403 of OA) has been violated. He submitted that no evidence was adduced by the respondents during the course of the inquiry which they are relying for the issue of disagreement note. He submitted that the disagreement note was never a part of proposal sent to the Railway Board as provided in the amended rule contained in amended Para 607.8 of IRVM (page 502 of OA).
Therefore, there is non-application of mind by the Railway Board. He submitted that the applicant was not provided with the CVC's advice which is being used against him and Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document thus there is violation of principles of Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 natural justice.
11.3 He submitted that none of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by counsel for the respondents are applicable to the facts of the case as issue of the disagreement note amounts to post decisional hearing and not a show cause notice and, therefore, it can be challenged. The 49 OA No.973/2023 disagreement note was as per the advice of Railway Board / CVC advice, but copy of their advice has not been supplied to the applicant. 11.4 Shri Walia submitted that the counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. T.V.
Patel which has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.K. Kapoor, 2011 (4) SCC 589. He further submitted that the respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Vijay Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Malhan Vs. UOI and Ors., which was decided by Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court. The LPA has been filed against the above judgment and the matter is still pending before the Division Bench, therefore, the same cannot be relied.
11.5 Regarding judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Prabhu Diwan Lute, Mr. Walia 50 OA No.973/2023 submitted that in that case there was delay in issuance of disagreement note only of 2 years while in the case of applicant there is delay of almost 6 years and, therefore, the same is on different footing. Moreover, in the case at hand it has been issued on the dictates of CVC and not as per Disciplinary Authority's own satisfaction.
11.6 Regarding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madras and Another Vs. F.X. Fernando, Mr.Walia submitted that there was delay by other departments than the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document department imposing the penalty while in the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 case at hand there was delay on the part of the respondents i.e. Railway Department itself and, therefore, the facts of this case are totally different.
12. We have heard both the learned counsel at length and also perused the pleadings and documents filed on record. We have also gone through the notings produced 51 OA No.973/2023 by the counsel for the respondents regarding issue of disagreement note.
13. The facts in brief are that the applicant belongs to Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) 1998 batch. He was on deputation in the CBFC as Chief Executive Officer between January, 2014 to August, 2014.
During his deputation to CBFC, some complaint was registered by one Mr. Praveen T. Mohare with the CBI, Mumbai which led to the arrest of the applicant and he was placed under suspension. The applicant was released by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document vide order dated 10th October, 2014. The Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 applicant was repatriated to his parent department i.e Western Railway. A departmental chargesheet dated 23rd September, 2016 was issued and served upon the applicant. Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 28th June, 2017 exonerating the applicant from all the 52 OA No.973/2023 charges. The Disciplinary Authority i.e the General Manger, Western Railway, provisionally accepted the inquiry report and forwarded the same to the Railway Board. The Railway Vigilance forwarded the same to the CVC. De-novo inquiry was ordered and a new Inquiry Officer, who was ex member of the Railway Board, was appointed. However, he recused himself on the ground that there is no provision for de-novo inquiry in the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual and, therefore, de-novo inquiry cannot be made. Thereafter, second Disciplinary Authority who Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document was new General Manager again forwarded Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 report to the Railway Board. The Railway Board forwarded the same to the CVC. In the meantime, a new General Manager i.e. the Disciplinary Authority was posted. The CVC issued 2nd stage advice for the issue of disagreement note. The advise of the CVC was not supplied to the applicant and a disagreement note based on the CVC advise was 53 OA No.973/2023 issued by the Disciplinary Authority dated 28th August, 2023 i.e. 5 years and 8 months after the submission of the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer. The Disagreement note was received by the applicant on 05th September, 2023. During pendency of this OA, the applicant has been compulsory retired under Section 56(j).
14. The issues to be decided in short are
(i) whether there was delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings in violation of rules and whether the proceedings are vitiated because of the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document delay;
Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
(ii) whether the disagreement note is merely a show cause notice and the same can be challenged by the applicant;
(iii) whether the decision of one
Disciplinary Authority can be changed by
the another Disciplinary Authority at the behest of Railway Board and CVC; and
(iv) whether there was violation of 54 OA No.973/2023 principles of natural justice, due to non-
supply of copy of CVC 2nd stage advice to the applicant.
15. It is not in dispute that the charge memorandum was issued to the applicant for the alleged incident of October, 2014 on 23 rd September, 2016. Inquiry Officer was appointed on 28th June, 2017 (Annexure A-7).
The Presenting Officer was appointed on 03 rd July, 2017 (Annexure A-8). The Presenting Officer in his presenting brief dated 06 th December, 2017 (Annexure A-2)has concluded that the applicant was not responsible for Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document the alleged act. It will be helpful to Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 reproduce herein the conclusion of the Presenting Officer:-
"Conclusion:
Based on the facts, circumstances, discussion and on evidences recorded during the inquiry and on basis of RUDs and facts taken on record it is established that Shri Rakesh Kumar is not found responsible due to following observations:-
1. Complainant filed by Shri Praveen T Mohare and in the contents of the complaint he alleged to Shri Rakesh Kumar and Shripati Mishra for demanded bribe Rs.70,000/-. During the inquiry he has admitted that CO did not demand bribe directly from him as well as he did not give any bribe to him.55 OA No.973/2023
Further, it may be noted during the course of enquiry, after completion of examination by PO, when Shri Mohare was being examined by CO, he left the enquiry room mid-way and did not turn up after that. Shri Mohare also failed to sign the statement recorded during enquiry. Despite repeated telephonic reminders, both by IO and PO, Shri Mohare did not respond.
In fact, acceptance by Shri Mohare of forging the censor certificate indicates poorly on his part.
2. Shri Shirpati Mishra admitted that money was taken by him as his fees as he was planning to tell Rakesh to screen picture of Mohare in place of his own picture. It was not asked for giving it to Mr. Rakesh Kumar.
3. Shri Prakash Nathan differed from the CBI statement and identification panchanama which is not acceptable, in this regard it highly objectionable. In the statement and identification panchnama he had given his consent & signed thereon before the CBI, but he has denied all the aspects in the course of inquiry. Furthermore he has accepted that he had given Laptop and i-pad to CO, but in the course of inquiry he admitted that on behalf of CO no one has asked for any gratification in cash or kind. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Further, he admitted that he did not give anything in cash or kind to CO. Therefore, charges level against Charged Officer not proven by his contradictory statements.
4. Transfer of films from CBFC Chennai was not demanded by the CO, it was necessary for clearing backlog of Censor certificate which was accepted by the many PWs working under CBFC-Mumbai & Chennai.
5. Shri Eknath Sawant prepared list for urgent basis films and personally handed over to CO and it also noticed that PW's repeatedly say that it was heard from the agent regarding speed money for issuing CCs in 1 day Rs.10000/-, 2 day 3000/- and 3 days & 2000/- were charged by the CO. This may show that CO try to use his power for illegal gratification, but this is not clear cut evidence found out during the course of inquiry. 56 OA No.973/2023
6. During the inquiry, a letter was written to CBI for providing the CCTV camera footage CDs. But even after several reminders through mobile phone, CDs were not made available by CBI. It is also pointed out that on every inquiry IO sent letter for attending Inquiry and PO also requested to CBI official for attend the same but during the phone conversation they accepted but did not turn up during the all inquiry. In absence of Investigation Official it is not feasible to prove the charges level against Charge Officer.
16. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the charge memorandum, brief of the Presenting Officer and evidence produced before him vide his report dated 26th December, 2017 (Annexure A-3), has concluded that charges against the applicant were not proved.
The Railway Board has issued time limit for Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
investigation and submission of investigation Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 reports (Annexure A-11 page 396 of OA). A model time table for disciplinary cases initiated as a result of vigilance investigation in consultation with the CVC which prescribes the following time limit :
(ii) A model time table 1* Issue of chargesheet after 30 days for disciplinary receipt of CVC's 1st stage cases initiated as a advice by the Railway result of vigilance 2 Service of chargesheet 10 days investigation in 3 Inspection of RUDs 30 days consultation with 4 Submission of written 20 days the CVC is as statement of defence, list of 57 OA No.973/2023 under: defence witnesses & list of defence documents 5 Decision to hold the inquiry 30 days after receipt of the defence 6 Nomination of IO /PO in 15 days consultation with CVC/Railway Board 7 Appointment of IO/PO 15 days 8** Completion of inquiry and 120- submission of report 180
days 9 Obtaining CVC's 2nd stage 45 days advice after receipt of inquiry report, in case of disagreement between DA and CVC's advice 10*** Decision of DA and imposition 3-60 of punishment days 11 Total 345- 435 days *Add another 45 days for issue of chargesheet wherever President/Railway Board is the Disciplinary Authority *** Upper time limit 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 consultant with UPSC.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson AlphansoA major penalty D&AR case initiated on vigilance Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= advice should normally be finalized in 12-15 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 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 251/2 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. Thus, according to the above time limit, total period from the serving of chargesheet to the imposition of punishment is 305 to 390 days. Though the model guidelines says that 58 OA No.973/2023 it may not be possible to adhere time limit in each and every case, yet it is expected that it should be completed expeditiously. In the case at hand, the charge memorandum was served upon the applicant on 23rd September, 2016 and impugned disagreement note has been issued on 28th August, 2023 i.e. after 7 years which cannot be said to be a normal delay.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicant has to demonstrate what prejudice has been caused because of the delay.
17.1 We find that the applicant in the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document ground No.5(c)has specifically averred that Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 he has suffered in the matter of his promotion to the next grade i.e Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) for over 6 years and all his juniors are either working in SAG or HAG Grade. During pendency of the OA, the applicant has been given compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j). Therefore, we find that the delay in completing the inquiry 59 OA No.973/2023 proceedings has caused prejudice to the applicant and, therefore, the same is vitiated because of the delay.
18. Coming to the second issue, whether the disagreement note is only a show cause notice and cannot be challenged by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that if the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that disagreement note is merely a show cause notice and the same cannot be challenged is to be accepted then in no case charge memorandum can be challenged because charge Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document memorandum is also a show cause notice. We Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 are of the considered view that even if disagreement note is a show cause notice but when there is inordinate delay in issuance of the disagreement note, the same is vitiated on account of delay as the applicant has been denied right of consideration of promotion because of the pending disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the contention raised 60 OA No.973/2023 by the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable.
19. The next question is whether one disciplinary authority can change the views/decision of his predecessor Disciplinary Authority. We have gone through the records of the disciplinary proceedings produced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
19.1 The file was put up to the Disciplinary Authority on 10th January, 2018 alongwith the Inquiry Officer's report. The SDGM has noted on page 50 of note sheet that Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document 'Charges against the CO have not been proved Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 by the RIO. Vigilance comments on the Inquiry Report are placed from CP 1241 to 1250 of limbed vigilance file. GM may please decide regarding MoD or otherwise' on 04th April, 2018.
19.2 The Disciplinary Authority i.e GM considered the inquiry report and other material as the entire file was put up to him 61 OA No.973/2023 for more than one month. He made noting on 05th May, 2018 (on page 50 of the note sheet) that 'Charges are not proved. We may seek advice from Railway Board'. The above noting of the Disciplinary Authority shows that he has accepted the report of the Inquiry officer and sought the advice from the Railway Board. Accordingly, the file was sent to the Railway Board for second stage advice on 28th May, 2018. The Railway Board sent the file back to the Disciplinary Authority on 13th August, 2018 with the advise that the Disciplinary Authority i.e. GM's clear Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document views/provisional decision regarding proposed Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 action against the applicant alongwith DA's detailed note giving reasons for his provisional decision & vigilance comments thereon may be sent immediately to Railway Board for obtaining second stage advice of CVC. Thereafter, GM vide his detailed noting dated 17th October, 2018 (page 53 of the note sheet of the disciplinary proceedings) has 62 OA No.973/2023 made following noting:
"i) Seen NP-50 for earlier noting
ii) I have gone through the SF5 Memorandum issued to Shri Rakesh Kumar, the then Chief Executive officer (CEO), Central Board of Films Certification (CBFC), Mumbai, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, who was on deputation, presently posted as Secretary/PG/CCG, WR, Inquiry report submitted by RIO Shri A.K. Verma and all other oral & documentary evidences connected with the case and vigilance comments.
There are three articles of charges framed against the CO. The Inquiry Officer (IO) has held that all these three articles of charges framed against the CO are not proved. I find that the IO has brought out explicit reasons for drawing his findings. Therefore, agreeing with the findings of the IO, my provisional view in this case is that I accept the findings of IO."
The above noting shows that the Disciplinary Authority for the second time accepted the Inquiry Officer's report regarding Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' exoneration of the applicant. The file was Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 sent to the Railway Board on 30th October, 2018. The matter was kept pending in the Railway Board for almost two years. The Railway Board vide letter dated 20th August, 2020 communicated the CVC's advice that there is a need to conduct a "de-novo" inquiry by appointing a new IO/PO.
20. It can be seen from the above noting 63 OA No.973/2023 that none of the authorities has mentioned that report of the IO was not acceptable. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. GM nominated Shri Aditya Kumr Mittal, Retired Member (Engineering) (who retired from the post of ME which was one rank above the GM in the hierarchy) had appointed as an Inquiry Officer on 18th November, 2020. The applicant made representation dated 09th December, 2020 that no reasons have been brought out for holding a de-novo inquiry which is as per CVC's advice. The Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) has made noting that there is no Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document specific mention of de-novo inquiry in the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Railway (D&A) Rules, 1968. The representation of the applicant was put up to the GM i.e. DA on 01st February, 2021. The Disciplinary Authority has noted (page 61 of the note sheet) that 'The representation is dated 09 th December, 2020 - Why it has taken so long to put up to him'. He has opined that para 5.3 (para 4 on CP 674/675) gives power to the 64 OA No.973/2023 Disciplinary Authority to appoint Inquiry Authority which should also include powers to replace well. He has further noted that 'In the present case, this has been exercised on advice of CVC by appointing a new EO/PO in November, 2020. This clarifies CO's representation and advised the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to go ahead with the inquiry. The new Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 26th October, 2021 (Annexure A-20 page 446 to 449 of OA), after discussing provisions vide paragraph 29 of Indian Railway Vigilance Manual and Rule Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document 10(1) and 10(2) of RS (D&A) Rules, has held Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 that since de-novo inquiry is not stipulated in the IRVM, he may be excused to conduct the above inquiry. The new Inquiry Officer held preliminary hearing on 15th September, 2021. It will be helpful to extract herein para Nos. 4 and 5 of new Inquiry Officer's letter dated 26th October, 2021 :
"4. Provisions vide paragraph 29 of "Indian Railway Vigilance Manual" and Rule 10(1) & (2) of RS(D&A) 65 OA No.973/2023 Rules, are as given below:
Paragraph 29 of Indian Vigilance Manual; "De novo enquiry should not be held if the Inquiry officer's findings are not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority. Such a step, if taken, would be inconsistent with the Discipline and appeal Rules, as the rules do not provide for such de novo enquiry. In such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority is required to follow the provisions contained in Rule 10(1) & 10(2) of RS (D&A) Rules"
Rule 10(1) & 10(2) of RS (D&A) Rules:
10 Action on the Inquiry Report:
(1) if the disciplinary authority:
(a) after considering the inquiry report is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses is necessary int eh interest of justice, it may recall the said witness and examine cross examine and re examine the witness.
(b) is not itself the inquiry authority may for the reasons to be recorded by it in writing remit the case to the inquiry authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiry authority shall thereon proceed to hold further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 9 as far as may be;Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
5. I am grateful for reposing faith in me for conducting above enquiry. But since, De-Novo inquiry is not stipulated in the IRVM, I may be excused to conduct the above Inquiry."
21. After receipt of the above letter of the new Inquiry Officer stating that there was no provision in the IRVM for the de-novo inquiry, the file was again put up to the GM i.e. DA by the DGM on 17th January, 2022 i.e. more than 3 months after the new Inquiry Officer has submitted his letter that there 66 OA No.973/2023 is no provision for de-novo inquiry. 21.1 The DA i.e. GM who happens to be the 3rd GM of the Western Railway vide his noting dated 18th January, 2022 (Page 88 of NP) has also agreed that there is no provision of De-
novo inquiry and expressed his opinion that the decision of the then DA be upheld in view of various provisions or Railway Board can guide it further. It will be helpful to reproduce the relevant noting of the DA dated 18th January, 2022 :
"(2) The DA (the then) had exercised his powers as per
(i) of NS-87 & therefore (ii) & (iii) were not applicable.
Still, on advice of RBd, denovo enquiry was ordered, IO Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
appointed etc. However, during the process, C.O. kept on reiterating the provisions of various Manuals incl. Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 IRVM. Finally, the new IO also returned back the case (CP 750-751) quoting the fact that "Denovo-Enquiry is not stipulated in the IRVM". SDGM has brought out the above on NS-83 (Table), quoting that this is not supported (i.e. No provision of De-novo Enquiry) Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decision of the then DA be upheld in view of various provisions OR Rly Board can guide it further. This case is continuing since last more than 6 years and is also causing mental agony to the C.O. (besides CBI case still continuing."
[emphasis supplied]
22. Thus, it can be seen from the above noting that the successive DAs have held that 67 OA No.973/2023 the Inquiry Officer's report was acceptable.
It has also been mentioned that the case is continuing since last more than 6 years and is also causing mental agony to the charged officer. The above noting itself shows that the Disciplinary Authority was aware about the delay in the disciplinary proceedings and also the agony being caused to the applicant.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant falls flat to the ground.
22.1 The noting on page 91 of the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document disciplinary proceedings reveals that the Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO) has noted that 'To carry out further proceedings in this major penalty charge sheet, next course of action shall be to serve the inquiry report to charged officer, with or without memorandum of differences. SDGM may please see & like to obtain decision of DA with respect to the above.' The third GM (DA) vide 68 OA No.973/2023 his noting dated 28th August, 2023 (NP-93) has noted that he does not agree with the findings of the IO and copy of inquiry report alongwith the memorandum of disagreement be served to the CO for submitting his defence, if any.
23. Thus, it can be seen that the applicant was provided the copy of inquiry report almost after six years. The above analysis further reveals that previous two GM i.e. earlier DAs have agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The third GM on the basis of advice of the CVC has issued Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document the disagreement note. Therefore, it is clear Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 that the same was issued at the behest of CVC and it was not on the basis of independent satisfaction of the DA. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the view changed by the present Disciplinary Authority to issue impugned disagreement note is not permissible.
24. Coming to the 4th question regarding the violation of principles of natural 69 OA No.973/2023 justice due to non supply of copy of CVC's second advice, various judicial pronouncements have held that non supply of second CVC advice which is being used against the applicant amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, it may be helpful to discuss the following judicial pronouncements:
24.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Another (supra has held in para 5 of the judgment as under:
"5.Reliance was placed on Sub-rule 5 of Rule 50 Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' which reads as under:
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 (5) Orders made by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority as the case may be under Sub-rules (3) and (4) shall be communicated to the employee concerned, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of inquiry, if any.
It was urged that copy of the inquiry report having been supplied to the respondent the rule was complied with and the High Court committed an error in coming to conclusion that principle of natural justice was violated. Learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the principle of natural justice having been incorporated and the same having been observed the Court was not justified in misinterpreting the rule. The learned Counsel urged that the Bank was very fair to the respondent and the disciplinary authority after 70 OA No.973/2023 application of mind and careful analysis of the material on record on its own evaluation, uninfluenced by the CVC recommendation passed the order. It was emphasised that if the exercise would have been mechanical the Disciplinary Authority would not have disagreed with CVC recommendations on punishment. Learned Counsel submitted that, in any case, the Disciplinary Authority having passed detailed order discussing every material on record and the respondent having filed appeal there was no prejudice caused to him. None of these submissions are of any help. The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise of powers or for non-supply of the inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could not have been looked into. Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non-supply of the report of Inquiry Officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor it is necessary to consider validity of sub-rule 5. But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied on, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry. From Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the letter produced by the respondent, the authenticity of which has been verified by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it appears the Bank turned down the request of the respondent for a copy of CVC recommendation as, 'The correspondence with the Central Vigilance Commission is a privileged communication and cannot be forwarded as the order passed by the Appointing Authority deals with the recommendation of the CVC which is considered sufficient'. Taking action against an employee on confidential document which is the foundation of order exhibits complete misapprehension about the procedure that is required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. May be that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its own findings and it may be coincidental that reasoning and basis of returning the finding of guilt are same as in the CVC report but it being a material obtained behind back of the 71 OA No.973/2023 respondent without his knowledge or supplying of any copy to him the High Court in our opinion did not commit any error in quashing the order. Non-supply of the Vigilance report was one of the grounds taken in appeal. But that was so because the respondent prior to service of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority did not have any occasion to know that CVC had submitted some report against him. The submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General that CVC recommendations are confidential copy, of which, could not be supplied cannot be accepted. Recommendations of Vigilance prior to initiation of proceedings are different than CVC recommendation which was the basis of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
[Emphasis supplied] 24.2 Similarly in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso held in para 26 as under:-
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 "26. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to interfere in a case where the report of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ court, in the event the findings arrived at in the departmental proceedings are questioned before it, it should keep in mind the following: (1) the enquiry officer is not permitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry. [ State of Assam & Anr.
V. Mahendra Kumar Das & Ors.[ (1970) 1 SCC 709 : AIR 1970 SC 1255] (2) In a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice [Khem Chand V. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 300 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969) 3 SCC 775]. (3) Exercise of discretionary power involve two 72 OA No.973/2023 elements (i) objective and (ii) subjective and existence of the exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of the subjective element. [ K.L. Tripathi V. State of Bank of India & Ors. [ (1984) 1 SCC 43 : AIR 1984 SC 273]. (4) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the principles of natural justice which depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. [ Sawai Singh V. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1986 SC 995] (5) The enquiry officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject matter of the charges is wholly illegal. [Director (Inspection & quality Control) Export Inspection Council of India & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Kumar Mitra & Ors. [1987 (2) CLJ 344]. (6) Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. The writ court is entitled to interfere with the findings of the fact of any tribunal or authority in certain circumstances. [ Central Bank of India Ltd. V. Prakash Chand Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 10]."
[Emphasis supplied] Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso 24.3 In the case of S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para Nos. 3 to 7 which are extracted herein as under:
"3. It is to be noticed that the advisory opinion of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the Appellant before he was heard by the disciplinary authority. The same was communicated to the Appellant along with final order passed in the matter by the disciplinary authority.
4. The Appellant filed O.A. No. 1154/2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and Tribunal held that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the following direction was issued: "We are of the considered opinion that this order is 73 OA No.973/2023 a non-speaking one and as such we are of the view that the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order and remand the case back to the disciplinary authority to pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with instructions and law on the subject."
5. This order was challenged by the Union of India by way of Writ Petition before the High Court of Delhi and by the impugned judgment the High Court interfered with that order. The Writ Petition was partly allowed and it was directed that the matter be again considered by the Tribunal. Against that order the Appellant has come up in appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.
6. We heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that the report of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the Appellant before the final order was passed. Therefore, the Appellant was unable to make an effective representation before the disciplinary authority as regards the punishment imposed.
7.We find that the stand taken by the Central Administrative Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Tribunal was correct and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant be finally disposed of in accordance with the direction given by the Tribunal in para 6 of the order. The appellant may submit a representation within two weeks to the disciplinary authority and we make it clear that the matter shall be finally disposed of by the disciplinary authority within a period of 3 months thereafter."
[Emphasis supplied] 24.4 We further find that the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Yogesh Ochhavlal Shah Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No.101/2006 74 OA No.973/2023 decided on 11th October, 2006, All India Services Law Journal V-
2007(2)90 has held that disagreement note issued at the behest of the CVC cannot be upheld and the same was quashed. It will be helpful to extract herein paras 25 to 29 of the order as under:
"25. Neither the CVC advice nor the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement discloses the convincing reasons. CVC advice refers to DG (Vigilance) advice, which is not brought on record. The reply also does not justify as to on what evidence the Disciplinary Authority came to a conclusion, different from his tentative conclusion. It has been indicated in para 19 above that apart from change of few words the disagreement note is a carbon copy of CVC advice.
26. The DG/Vigilance, as the name signifies, in a DG rank officer. The Disciplinary Authority is a Commissioner rank officer. There is also the intervening rank of Chief Commissioner. The Disciplinary Authority initially advices exoneration.Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
27. The Apex court in Karjagi's case had reiterated that UPSC advice is advisory, not biding and that UPSC does not act as Appellate Authority of D.A./E.O. The advice is not binding. It further held that no third party either the Government or CVC can advice the Disciplinary Authority on how the exercise its quasi-judicial power. It struck down the circulars issued by Ministry of Finance and Syndicate Bank.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Sai Baba's case noted that CVO was of GM rank while the D.A. was of inferior rank. The D.A. had initially advised imposition of lesser punishment but later on imposed the punishment.
28. It is true that the present matter is only at the stage of disagreement note. But as per Para 6 of the guidelines the D.A. cannot exonerate and has to send that matter back for reconsideration.
29. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that this is a fit case to be interfered with as the 75 OA No.973/2023 Disciplinary Authority has issued the disagreement note on the dictates of CVC and without coming to an independent finding. We accordingly quash and set aside the disagreement note. In the result, the disciplinary proceedings also stands quashed. There shall be no order as to costs." [Emphasis supplied] 24.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in the case of K. Prabhakar Hegde Vs. Bank of Baroda in Civil Appeal No.6599/2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.6358/2022 vide judgment dated 19th August, 2025 has held that the respondent cannot claim the advice of CVC as a privilege communication and non-supply of the copy of the CVC advice to the applicant is a violation of principles of natural justice.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson AlphansoMilan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
25. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that disagreement note issued without providing the copy of the second stage advice of the CVC to the applicant was in violation of principles of natural justice.
26. In ordinary circumstances, in respect of disagreement note sent by the Disciplinary Authority, the matter could have been 76 OA No.973/2023 relegated back to the Disciplinary Authority with direction to the applicant to submit reply in respect of disagreement note and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority may be permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
However, in peculiar facts of the present case, when after submission of inquiry report in the year 2017, the original Disciplinary Authority and the successive Disciplinary Authorities were of the opinion that there is no material against the applicant. Further, the process of de-novo inquiry was also initiated but not proceeded with on the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document ground that there is no provision to conduct Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the de-novo inquiry. However, under the garb of impugned disagreement note, now the Disciplinary Authority is willing to proceed against the applicant which is a arbitrary and unreasonable process which is contrary to law. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, since the decision making process is arbitrary and unreasonable, therefore, the 77 OA No.973/2023 impugned disagreement note is liable to be quashed.
27. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and judicial pronouncements on the issue, we are of the considered view that the impugned disagreement note cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same is quashed and set aside.
28. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson AlphansoMilan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN= Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.21 17:30:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 (Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A) ma.