Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
K P Manoj Narayanan vs Western Railway on 9 April, 2026
:1: OA No.120/275/2025.
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH.
Original Application No.275 of 2025
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2026
Reserved on: 19.03.2026
Pronounced on : 09.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
K. P. Manoj Narayanan, Male, aged about 60 years,
having address at Plot no. 66-67-68/B,
New Rushirajnagar, Bh Desai Nagar petrol pump,
Bhavnagar-364001
... Applicant
(By Advocate Sh. Prithu Parimal)
Vs.
1. The General Manager,Western Railway,
HQ Office, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
DRM Office, Western Railway,
Bhavnagar Para, Gujarat - 364 003.
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. H.D.Shukla)
ORDER
Per Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the actions of the respondents in issuing a Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025 (Annex. -1) and withhold the applicant‟s pension and retiral benefits without there being any final finding of guilt of the applicant, hence, the applicant has filed the present O.A. under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :2: OA No.120/275/2025.
"(A) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to admit and allow the present Application;
(B) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to call for the records of the inquiry and quash and set aside the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025 (ANNEXURE - A1), issued to the Applicant, as being vague, illegal, procedurally vitiated, ultra vires the Railway Vigilance Manual, and violative of principles of natural justice;
(C) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare all consequential proceedings pursuant to the said charge-sheet (including any inquiry, inquiry report or recommendations, if made) as null and void, and restrain the Respondents from proceeding further with any disciplinary action against the Applicant on the impugned charges;
(D) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith release all pensionary and retirement benefits due to the Applicant, including his full monthly pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension, leave encashment, and any other withheld dues, along with applicable interest for the delayed payment;
(E) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require and in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Shri K. P. Manoj Narayanan, served as Chief Office Superintendent (Level-7) in the Personnel Department, Bhavnagar Division, Western Railway. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 28.02.2025.
2.1 It is stated that in the month of March 2019, Bhavnagar Division procured a web-based examination software (commonly referred to as "e- Pariksha") from a vendor, M/s Leeway Softech Ltd., for conducting Computer-Based Tests (in short „CBT‟) for departmental exams. At the relevant time, the applicant was working as a Office Superintendent (IT) and role, was limited to processing or endorsing the Letter of Acceptance for that procurement of the software as part of his official duties.
In February 2024, a similar CBT software solution was procured by Ahmedabad Division from a firm named M/s Gujarat Open Source Solutions (GOSS) for about Rs. 3.82 lakhs. Notably, GOSS is a proprietorship owned by the applicant's mother. The applicant, however, had no role in the Ahmedabad Division‟s tender or procurement process or any decision JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :3: OA No.120/275/2025.
making process, as he was never posted in or officially connected to Ahmedabad Division.
2.2 It is further stated that in the last quarter of the year 2024, a vigilance inquiry was initiated (reportedly upon a CVC complaint) concerning the conduct of a CBT-based Staff Welfare Inspector exam in Ahmedabad Division on 16.03.2024. The Vigilance officials of Western Railway initiated a preliminary investigation focusing on a possible "conflict of interest" due to the applicant‟s familial relationship with the proprietor of GOSS. During the said preliminary fact-finding process, the applicant was called upon on 20.12.2024, to provide informal clarifications about the e-Pariksha software and its usage. The applicant voluntarily submitted a written statement answering several questions about the software‟s development, features, and his knowledge of its implementation. These answers demonstrated that the applicant was technically proficient with the software. Crucially, no formal vigilance case was registered against the applicant at that stage, nor was any formal questionnaire issued to him as an accused official under the Railway Vigilance Manual procedures.
2.3 However, on or around 03.01.2025, Vigilance personnel seized a departmental server from Bhavnagar Division purportedly to examine data related to the e-Pariksha software. This server contained official Railway data and software applications used in Bhavnagar. The seizure was carried out without any prior approval or sanction from the competent administrative authority (e.g., without the Divisional Railway Manager‟s permission or any written orders from the General Manager). No warrant or magistrate order was obtained under the Information Technology Act, 2000 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before taking custody of the server. A "Joint Report" dated 10.01.2025 was later prepared documenting the "unwrapping" of the seized server in the presence of certain officials, indicating that the JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :4: OA No.120/275/2025.
server had been sealed and then opened for investigation. The applicant asserts that this seizure was unlawful and against Railway protocols.
2.4 Subsequently, the applicant was issued a Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025, containing one Article of Charge along with a Statement of Imputations. The gravamen of the charge is that the applicant "committed gross misconduct" by allegedly engaging in an indirect business interest through his familial connection with GOSS. The charge-sheet alleges as under:
"Shri K. P. Manoj Narayanan, while working in Personnel Department as OS in Bhavnagar Division, had endorsed the Letter of Acceptance (Work Order) in favour of M/s Leeway Softech Ltd. for design, development, supply and commissioning of web-based e-Pariksha for Rs. 482620/- (incl. of GST) vide letter dated 28.03.2019 and thereafter at Ahmedabad Division, in the name of M/s Gujarat Open Source Solutions, contract for e-Pariksha exam software was awarded to the firm for Rs. 3,82,320/- (incl. of GST), though M/s Gujarat Open Source Solutions is a proprietorship firm in the name of Mrs. Kunhallur Puthiyottil Shantha, who is the mother of Shri K. P. Manoj Narayanan. This shows that the e- Pariksha software purchased by Bhavnagar Division has been sold by Shri K. P. Manoj Narayanan to Ahmedabad Division in the name of M/s Gujarat Open Source Solutions deliberately for monetary benefit, and he has been called by Ahmedabad Division for managing the software when e-Pariksha CBT exams are conducted, which shows that he has been indirectly involved in the business of e-Pariksha software. Thus, by his above acts, Shri K. P. Manoj Narayanan, Chief Office Superintendent at Personnel Department, Bhavnagar Division, has failed to maintain absolute integrity by involving himself in the business of e- Pariksha software for CBT exams, thereby violating Rule 3(1) and Rule 13(1) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."
2.5 It is stated that the impugned charge-sheet‟s narrative is entirely vague, speculative, and unsupported by evidence. There is no proof that the applicant derived any monetary benefit from the Ahmedabad Division contract with GOSS, as the applicant was neither a signatory nor a beneficiary of that contract. The charge-sheet itself lists several documents (letters, statements, and server data), but none show that the applicant had any financial interest in GOSS or any role in awarding the contract. In fact, the list of relied-upon documents includes the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and the applicant‟s own salary slip, but does not cite any JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :5: OA No.120/275/2025.
evidence of payment, ownership, or profit accruing to the applicant from GOSS. The sole basis of the said misconduct charge is the familial relationship (mother-son) and the applicant‟s incidental awareness of e- Pariksha software acquired by him during discharge of his official duties at Bhavnagar. It is stated and submitted that mere expertise/awareness of e- Pariksha software cannot by itself imply that the applicant has engaged in a trade or business.
2.6 It is also stated that the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide the said charge-sheet have been fraught with procedural irregularities and denial of natural justice from the outset. The applicant‟s requests for access to all evidence, including technical/forensic analysis of the software to prove the sameness of software in both divisions, have gone unanswered. The respondents also failed to hold any preliminary inquiry or seek any explanation from the applicant before issuing the major penalty charge, contrary to the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the principles of natural justice.
2.7 It is further stated that impugned charge memo has been issued in grave violation of the procedure laid down under the Vigilance Manual (Annex.A/3 refer).
2.8 It is stated that the applicant retired upon attaining the age of superannuation in February 2025 (Annex.A/4 refer). However, because of the pending charge-sheet and disciplinary inquiry (deemed to continue under Rule 9 of the Railway Pension Rules for retired employees), the respondents have withheld the applicant‟s pension and other retirement dues. Till date, the applicant has not received his gratuity or full pension commutation; only a provisional pension (a reduced percentage) is being remitted. This withholding has been done "pending inquiry", despite no finding of guilt. The applicant's representations for release of his pensionary benefits have not JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :6: OA No.120/275/2025.
yielded any positive response, prompting him to seek relief from this Tribunal.
2.9 Aggrieved by the above actions i.e. the issuance of an allegedly charge-sheet, the unauthorized seizure of property, the arbitrary allegation of misconduct without evidence, the unfair conduct of the disciplinary process, and the punitive withholding of his hard-earned retirement benefits, the applicant filed the instant OA for redressal of his grievances.
3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Hon‟ble Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant, to which the applicant has also filed a rejoinder.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025 is ultra vires the prescribed procedure in the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, as the Vigilance Manual clearly distinguishes informal preliminary clarifications from a formal vigilance case.
Para 520 of the Manual permits Vigilance to record "clarifications in connection with the investigation" from officials at the preliminary stage, but explicitly states that "No case shall be registered against any of the officials who have been asked to give their opinion/clarification on the issues raised." However, in the present case, the only input taken from the applicant was his informal clarification statement dated 20.12.2024 during preliminary inquiry. No formal complaint was registered and no "Questionnaire" was ever issued to the applicant as a suspected officer, as mandated by Para 521 of the Vigilance Manual for registering a vigilance case.
According to Para 521.1, a vigilance case requires prior approval of the competent authority (SDGM/CVO/GM) and the issuance of a Questionnaire after a prima facie case of irregularity is established. Only JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :7: OA No.120/275/2025.
upon the decision to issue such a Questionnaire is a case treated as formally registered. Here, the respondents bypassed this procedure entirely, as the applicant was never formally confronted with a Questionnaire detailing allegations to allow him a proper chance to respond in line with principles of natural justice. Instead, the respondents straightaway issued a charge-sheet based on the applicant‟s preliminary clarification and other ex-parte information. This procedural shortcut not only violates the mandatory provisions of the Vigilance Manual but also defeats the principles of fairness and natural justice. The said Manual even provides that a Questionnaire should be served to the suspect official to afford an opportunity to explain and counter the allegations before finalizing the investigation report, which opportunity was denied to the applicant.
While the Manual (Para 522.4) allows dispensing with a Questionnaire in certain exceptional circumstances (e.g., if the officer is due to retire and is non-cooperative, necessitating speedy action), those conditions did not exist here, as the applicant was fully cooperative (he provided detailed answers during the inquiry) and the evidence against him was not so clinching as to justify skipping this vital step. Thus, the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet is procedurally invalid, having been issued in contravention of Paras 520-522 of the Vigilance Manual. As such, on this ground alone, the impugned charge-sheet is liable to be set aside as having been issued without jurisdiction and against the Railways‟ own governing instructions.
4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the actions of the Vigilance Directorate in seizing the Railway‟s departmental server (presumably containing the e-Pariksha software and related data) from Ahmedabad Division were patently unlawful and in excess of jurisdiction. Railway Vigilance officers do not possess general police powers of search and JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :8: OA No.120/275/2025.
seizure. Their mandate is to investigate internal corruption and misconduct, but any seizure of property or data must have legal sanction.
In this case, no internal administrative approval was obtained from the Divisional Railway Manager or General Manager before confiscating the server, which violates the administrative control and ownership of such assets. Furthermore, there was no warrant or authorization under the Information Technology Act, 2000 or the Criminal Procedure Code for this seizure. Section 80 of the IT Act authorizes certain law enforcement officers to search and seize digital evidence with warrant or specified conditions, and Sections 102/165 Cr.P.C. empower police officers (not Vigilance inspectors) to seize property suspected in an offence, with proper procedure. However, the Vigilance officers acted ultra vires, as Railway Vigilance cannot seize a data server without proper legal sanction or beyond its jurisdiction. As elaborated in the Railway‟s own guidance, Vigilance may collect evidence and conduct inquiries, but cannot act as law enforcement to autonomously seize IT assets.
The competent authority for a Division‟s assets is the DRM/GM, and bypassing them not only breaches Railway protocols but also the principles of natural justice (the division was not given an opportunity to be heard or to secure its data). The seizure also potentially violated privacy and data security norms, as the server likely contained sensitive personal and official data beyond the scope of the investigation. Thus, the evidence obtained from this illegal seizure is tainted and cannot be relied upon. Thus, the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated for having been built on actions that were per se unlawful. The applicant‟s fundamental rights (right to property under Article 300A and right to privacy under Article 21) have been infringed by this unauthorized confiscation. The Tribunal is empowered to quash JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :9: OA No.120/275/2025.
proceedings that are a product of such procedural illegality and abuse of authority.
4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the core allegation that the applicant violated Rule 15(1)(a) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 is misconceived and baseless. Rule 15(1)(a) prohibits a Railway servant from "engaging directly or indirectly in any trade or business." The intent of this rule is to prevent government servants from running or participating in private commercial ventures for personal gain, which could conflict with their official duties. In the present case, the applicant has not engaged in any trade or business whatsoever. He does not own, manage, or hold any position in M/s GOSS as the proprietorship is in his mother‟s name, and there is no evidence that it is a benami for the applicant. Simply having a relative in business does not implicate the government servant under Rule 15 of the Rules ibid, unless the servant himself has a role in that business. The charge- sheet‟s narrative relies on supposition, as it claims the applicant "took the Bhavnagar e-Pariksha software and gave it to Ahmedabad Division in the name of GOSS, charging the Railways." This is a speculative inference, not a proven fact.
There is no technical or documentary evidence presented that the applicant illicitly transferred the software or that he financially benefitted from the Ahmedabad contract. Notably, no charge of bribery or corruption has been levelled, which would have been the case if there was any hint of monetary gratification. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. J. Ahmed has held that misconduct must be clearly proved and cannot be inferred from mere suspicion. An error of judgment or lapse does not automatically amount to misconduct unless it is culpable or in breach of a specific rule. Similarly, the applicant‟s mere association with a vendor (through a family link) cannot be treated as engaging in that vendor‟s JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :10: OA No.120/275/2025.
business. There is no personal wrongdoing, as the applicant neither concealed the relationship nor took any decision to favour the vendor nor derived any benefit. The Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in G. Amarnesan v. Union of India has also observed that familial connections, absent proof of personal gain or influence, do not constitute misconduct under Conduct Rules. Therefore, the charge under Rule 15(1)(a) is ex facie unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
4.3 Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that respondents‟ action of withholding the applicant‟s pensionary benefits after his retirement (without any final penalty or judicial finding) is illegal and unconstitutional. Pension and gratuity are not bounty but property rights earned for long years of service. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, has held that in the absence of a specific rule, pension or gratuity cannot be withheld merely because proceedings are pending. Executive instructions do not have the force of law under Article 300A. Only a statutory rule (such as Rule 9 of Railway Pension Rules) can authorize withholding, and that too upon a finding of guilt in concluded proceedings. In the present case, no penalty has been imposed and the inquiry is still pending. Thus, the respondents‟ action has no legal basis and violates Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution. The applicant is suffering financial hardship due to this unlawful deprivation and accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to immediate release of his retirement benefits.
4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that as per the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, there is no embargo on family members of an employee being awarded contracts by the Railways. Therefore, the present allegation is vague, cryptic, and does not constitute any misconduct. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon‟ble JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :11: OA No.120/275/2025.
Supreme Court in Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 v. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 332, and Anand R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society & Ors., reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515, particularly paragraph 16 thereof. Thus, it is submitted that the charges must be specific, definite, and supported by details of the incidents forming their basis; no inquiry can be sustained on vague or indefinite charges.
4.5 Learned counsel also submitted that even otherwise, the impugned actions are not in accordance with the settled principles of law and therefore cannot be sustained, as the same are arbitrary, high-handed and in grave violation of the fundamental rights of the Applicant enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4.6 Lastly, learned counsel prayed that instant OA deserves to be allowed by this Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the counter affidavit submitted that the applicant has preferred the present OA to quash and set aside the Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025 issued to him and to declare all consequential proceedings as null and void. The applicant has further prayed for release of Leave Encashment payable on superannuation and release of DCRG (Gratuity) with interest.
5.1 Learned counsel further submitted that M/s Gujarat Open Source Solutions is a proprietorship firm of Mrs. Kunhallur Puthiyottil Shantha, who is the mother of the applicant - Shri K.P. Manoj Narayanan. This shows that the E-Pariksha software purchased by Bhavnagar Division has been sold by the applicant to Ahmedabad Division in the name of M/s Gujarat Open Source Solutions (GOSS) deliberately for monetary benefit, and he has been called by Ahmedabad Division for managing the software when E-Pariksha CBT exams were conducted, which shows that he has been directly involved in the business of E-Pariksha software.
JITENDRA 2026.04.13
RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30'
:12: OA No.120/275/2025.
5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that in the past, the applicant has
been awarded minor and major penalties on several occasions while working at Bhavnagar Division. The copy of NIP issued for major penalty dated 03.03.2003 shows that he was removed from service. Further, under major penalty proceedings, NIP was issued dated 20.11.2008. The service record of the applicant is filled with punishments. The LWP/absent statement shows that he was not in service for 1722 days (Annexure-R1 (Colly.)). Hence, it is evident that his service record is not unblemished and there is a clear attempt to suppress the facts of his service record.
5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that a letter dated 15.04.2025 under the signature of Chief Personnel Officer (G), Churchgate, was issued to the Vigilance Officer, in which it is mentioned that the applicant, working as Chief Office Superintendent/IT, was the Incharge of CBT Exam (i.e., Computer Based Test) and superannuated on 28.02.2025. No details of CBT server in IT Cell (CBT room) are available. This letter shows that the applicant was the Incharge of CBT software and exam. Further, Ahmedabad Division has been writing letters dated 22.11.2024 and 17.12.2024 to relieve the applicant for the purpose of conducting CBT exams at Ahmedabad Division. This shows that the applicant was providing support to Ahmedabad Division regarding CBT software. The software purchased by Ahmedabad Division was from M/s GOSS, which is a proprietorship firm registered in the name of applicant‟s mother, whose date of birth is 12.04.1937. The address of M/s GOSS and the residence address of the applicant are the same. From the above, it is evident that the applicant is connected to Ahmedabad Division and is intentionally suppressing the above facts to mislead this Tribunal.
5.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant was physically present at the Vigilance Office and questions were asked from the applicant, JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :13: OA No.120/275/2025.
regarding the Ahmedabad Division exam conducted on 16.03.2024 through E-Pariksha Computer Based Test, for which applicant replied in answers 1 and 2. The reply given regarding the CBT software and exam delay issue shows that he was connected with the CBT exam held on 16.03.2024, which was investigated on the basis of a CVC complaint. The vigilance investigation was done on the basis of the CVC complaint dated 02.07.2024. Hence, the CVC complaint was registered prior to recording of the statement of the applicant.
5.5 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the computer server was seized on 03.01.2025 from the Sr. DPO Office of Bhavnagar Division by the Vigilance Department. The computer server was under the control of the Personnel Department of Bhavnagar Division. A letter to Sr. DPO Bhavnagar dated 02.01.2025 was handed over, in which at para 2, it was mentioned to hand over the physical server to Vigilance officials. The seizure of the computer server was conducted jointly in the presence of Personnel Department IT staff, Accounts Department IT staff, and Vigilance officials.
It is submitted that as per IRVM para 110.1, "The Vigilance officials are authorized to enter any of the premises of Indian Railways, including its PSUs, inspect any records and take possession of such documents, materials or stores under the control of Railway as are necessary in connection with the investigation of a case as per procedure."
The joint report dated 10.01.2025 was signed by the Applicant and no objection was recorded by him, which shows that the alleged allegations are an afterthought and misleading.
5.6 Learned counsel argued that the applicant was indirectly involved in the CBT software of Ahmedabad Division, which is a violation of Rule 15(1)(a) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, which states that :
JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :14: OA No.120/275/2025.
"Private trade or employment.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), no Railway servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government--(a) engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business."
However, the applicant had not sought permission from the competent authority for transaction of business in his individual capacity.
5.7 Learned counsel also submitted that that letters were issued in favour of the applicant to be present for CBT exams at Ahmedabad Division. Also, no Annual Maintenance Contract was given to the firm through which software was purchased at Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad Divisions. This shows that the entire software was managed by the applicant. The Zonal Headquarters letter, Churchgate Office (Head of Personnel Department), states that "Shri K.P. Manoj Narayanan was the Incharge of CBT software and exam." This further supports that the applicant was the person in charge of CBT for the entire zone of Western Railway. Also, the residence address of the applicant and M/s GOSS is the same. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Major Penalty Charge Sheet has been issued.
5.8 Learned counsel further submitted that a letter from Vigilance dated 18.02.2025 was issued to provide documents from the applicant, for which a reply has been received from the Personnel Department of Bhavnagar that the applicant has denied providing information related to bank statements. This shows that the applicant has denied providing requisite documents and has suppressed facts intentionally before this Trubunal.
5.9 It is also submitted that as per IRVM para 522.4 (Annexure-R1 refer), "The opportunity of a Questionnaire may not be given in the following circumstances:
"(a) where there is sufficient documentary evidence available to clinch the allegations against the suspect railway servant which he is not likely to be able to controvert;
(b) where the railway servant is due to retire but is non-cooperative and it is necessary to finalize the report and issue a charge sheet before he retires, or JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :15: OA No.120/275/2025.
in those cases where a railway servant has already retired but the case being investigated is shortly becoming time barred for action under the Pension Rules."
However, in the instant case, sufficient evidence are available against the applicant and the applicant showed non-cooperation by denying his bank statements prior to retirement. Also, the applicant was superannuating on 28.02.2025. Hence, the action taken was as per IRVM 2018. Even after retirement, the Vigilance Department asked for bank statements vide letter dated 19.03.2025 and DRM‟s Office letter dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure-R5 refer), However, the applicant vide letter dated 27.05.2025 denied the same.
5.10 Learned counsel further submitted that the inquiry was scheduled before the Enquiry Inspector on 30.06.2025, 18.07.2025 and 01.08.2025, but the applicant did not attend the inquiry on these dates. The inquiry is pending due to the applicant‟s non-appearance. Further, the applicant has approached this Tribunal without completing inquiry proceedings and this Tribunal vide Order dated 31.07.2025 granted an ad-interim stay by restraining the respondents to further proceedings in the said disciplinary inquiry.
The action taken is as per IRVM 2018, Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Applicant should be directed to attend inquiry proceedings.
5.11 Further, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to full pensionary benefits unless disciplinary proceedings are concluded and he is exonerated. Retirement benefits include: Pension, Commutation of Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance and PF Credits. Further, as per Rule 9(3) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, provisional pension is payable where proceedings are pending. The applicant has been granted provisional pension equal to full pension under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules ibid through PPO No. 20257081700057 (Annexure-R2 refer). The applicant opted out of commutation of pension vide letter dated 05.02.2025 JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :16: OA No.120/275/2025.
(Annexure-R3 refer). Further, as per Rule 10(1)(c) of the Rules ibid, gratuity cannot be paid until conclusion of proceedings. So far as leave encashment is concerned, the same is withheld under Rule 550(B)(c) of the Leave Rules (Ch.5 of Establishment Code) due to pending proceedings (Annexure-R4 refer). However, it is submitted that Group Insurance (Rs.67,915.00) and PF (Rs.5,39,794.00) have already been paid. Thus, withholding of above stated part of the retiral dues is as per Pension Rules and not punitive.
5.12 Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the instant OA has been preferred by the applicant without any cause of action and thus is an abuse of process of law. As such, the applicant is not entitled to any relief from this Tribunal.
6. In rejoinder, the applicant while refuting the contentions of the respondents besides reiterating the averments as mentioned in the OA and noted above, has submitted that the bare assertion that the E-Pariksha software "purchased by Bhavnagar Division has been sold by the applicant to Ahmedabad Division" is a bald allegation without any proof of ownership, sale, monetary benefit, or even a single financial transaction linking the applicant to M/s GOSS. The applicant was never the proprietor, partner, director, or beneficiary of the said firm. M/s GOSS is the proprietorship of his mother, Mrs. Kunhallur Puthiyottil Shantha, an independent person. The respondents have failed to produce any evidence of monetary benefit accruing to the applicant from the said firm. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no blanket embargo stipulated under the rules on awarding a contract to a relative of a railway employee, so long as the contract is not awarded by the concerned employee himself.
6.1 Learned counsel also submitted by referring to the earlier punishment imposed upon the applicant, the respondents are attempting to malign the applicant‟s image by referencing old and stale punishments, including one JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :17: OA No.120/275/2025.
from the year 2003, i.e., more than two decades ago, which is a mischievous attempt to prejudice this Tribunal. The said references are wholly irrelevant to the present proceedings and are introduced merely to create a negative impression. It is stated that the applicant‟s service record, spanning nearly four decades, is substantially unblemished and that isolated incidents from the distant past cannot be used to characterise his entire career. The reference to LWP/absent statement of 1722 days is also grossly misleading, and the respondents have not clarified the context or basis thereof.
6.2 It is further submitted that the applicant does not dispute that he was functioning as Chief Office Superintendent/IT at Bhavnagar Division. However, the fact that he was the "In-charge of CBT Software and Exam" is a reflection of his official duties and not any private business activity. The applicant was deputed to Ahmedabad Division by the competent authority, i.e., the Sr. DPO/ADI, vide official letters dated 22.11.2024 and 17.12.2024, which the respondents themselves have placed on record. It is settled law that an employee acting under official orders cannot be held guilty of misconduct for performing the very duties assigned to him by his employer. Moreover, the alleged contract was awarded to M/s GOSS prior to the brief deputation of the applicant at Ahmedabad.
6.3 Learned counsel further admitted that the applicant was present at the Vigilance Office on 14.12.2024 and that informal clarifications were sought from him. However, the very admission by the respondents proves the applicant‟s case. The applicant‟s statement dated 14.12.2024 was in the nature of "clarifications in connection with the investigation" within the meaning of Para 520 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 2018. As per Para 520.5 of the said Manual, the names of officials from whom such clarifications are taken are not to be mentioned in the tabular statement of the investigation report. More importantly, "no case shall be registered against JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :18: OA No.120/275/2025.
any official who has been asked to give his opinion/clarification on the issues raised." Despite this express mandate, the respondents proceeded to issue a Major Penalty Charge Sheet to the very official from whom only clarifications were taken, in flagrant violation of the Vigilance Manual. The respondents have attempted to justify the seizure of the computer server by citing IRVM Para 110.1. However, the said provision relates to the general power to enter premises and inspect records, and does not extend to the seizure and carrying away of servers containing official data. The seizure of a computer server is governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000, which requires specific procedural safeguards. The fact that the applicant signed the Joint Report dated 10.01.2025 cannot be taken as an admission or a waiver of his right to challenge the legality of the seizure. The applicant was present in his official capacity, and his signature merely acknowledged his presence, not his consent to the seizure. The respondents‟ reliance on Rule 15(1)(a) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, is misconceived and misplaced. The applicant has never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any trade or business. M/s GOSS is the sole proprietorship of his mother, who is an independent legal entity. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the applicant had any ownership stake, financial interest, profit-sharing arrangement, or decision-making role in M/s GOSS. The respondents have not produced a single document showing any monetary benefit received by the applicant. The mere fact that the applicant‟s mother owns a firm cannot, ipso facto, render the applicant guilty of engaging in trade or business. Furthermore, the software being open-source software, whose source code is made available to the public under a licence that permits use, modification, and distribution without payment of royalty or licence fees (subject to compliance with applicable licence terms), the charge against the applicant is misconceived and false.
JITENDRA 2026.04.13
RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30'
:19: OA No.120/275/2025.
6.4 Learned counsel reiterated that applicant‟s deputation to Ahmedabad
Division for conducting CBT exams was pursuant to official orders issued by the Sr. DPO/ADI. However, the respondents are attempting to characterise official duty as "providing support" to the firm of the applicant‟s mother is absurd and contrary to the facts on record. The applicant was directed by his superiors to assist in the conduct of CBT examinations, and he merely complied with the lawful orders of his superiors. The absence of an Annual Maintenance Contract does not by itself establish that the applicant was managing the software in a private capacity. The respondents themselves were aware of the applicant‟s technical expertise, which is precisely why they deputed him.
6.5 So far as contention of the respondents that the applicant "denied to provide the requisite documents" is concerned, learned counsel submitted that applicant was within his legal rights to decline to produce his personal bank statement in a preliminary vigilance investigation, particularly, when no formal proceedings or Questionnaire had been issued. The right against self- incrimination is a fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. No adverse inference can be drawn from the exercise of a constitutional right.
6.6 With regard to reliance of the respondents on Para 522.4 of the IRVM, it is submitted that Para 522.4 permits dispensing with a Questionnaire only in limited circumstances, namely: (a) where there is sufficient documentary evidence which the suspect is not likely to be able to controvert; (b) where the railway servant is due to retire but is non- cooperative; or (c) where the case is shortly becoming time-barred. It is submitted that refusal to produce a personal bank statement during an informal inquiry does not amount to "non-cooperation" within the meaning JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :20: OA No.120/275/2025.
of Para 522.4. The Applicant fully cooperated by providing detailed clarifications on 14.12.2024.
6.7 Learned counsel also submitted that the Applicant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 16.01.2026, seeking the following information from the Western Railway, Personnel Department, Bhavnagar Division:
i. A certified copy of the vigilance advice/recommendation dated 02.02.2025 (or the relevant date), on the basis of which the charge-
sheet was issued to the applicant;
ii. A copy of the vigilance advice/recommendation on the basis of which the applicant‟s settlement dues, including DCRG (Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity) and leave encashment, have been withheld;
iii. Copies of any other vigilance advice, recommendations, notes, or communications pertaining to the Applicant‟s case.
The reply to the said RTI application was received by the applicant vide letter dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure-P1 refer), signed by the Public Information Officer and Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Bhavnagar Division. The said RTI reply categorically states as under:
"At present your DAR/Vig case No. E/161/2025/03 is under process, hence any documents related to your case cannot be provided to you at present."
The aforesaid RTI reply is of far-reaching consequence and conclusively establishes that the impugned charge memo dated 24.02.2025 is premature, illegal, and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the applicant thus submitted as under:
a) The RTI reply dated 28.01.2026, issued by the Respondents‟ own Public Information Officer, unequivocally admits that the DAR/Vigilance case bearing No. E/161/2025/03 is "under JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :21: OA No.120/275/2025.
process," meaning that the vigilance enquiry has still not been concluded even as of January 2026, i.e., nearly eleven months after the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet;
b) As per the scheme of the Vigilance Manual, the sequence of events mandated is: (i) preliminary enquiry; (ii) preparation of a self- contained enquiry report; (iii) submission to the CVO; (iv) recommendation to the Disciplinary Authority; and (v) decision by the Disciplinary Authority.
c) In the present case, the vigilance enquiry has admittedly not been concluded. The CVO has not submitted any enquiry report nor made any recommendation. In the absence of the CVO‟s recommendation, the Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the charge-sheet.
d) The Respondents‟ inability to provide vigilance advice under RTI shows that no such recommendation existed at the time of issuing the charge memo.
e) The Respondents‟ claim of "sufficient evidence" is thus false and misleading.
e) The charge memorandum is premature and liable to be set aside.
6.8 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant also received an RTI reply dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure-P2 refer), which reveals that another employee handling similar software had retired without handing over records. This demonstrates that software management was part of official duties and not unique to the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that this Tribunal passed an ad-interim order dated 31.07.2025 in this case restraining further proceedings, and the applicant has acted accordingly.
6.9 It is also contended that withholding of retirement benefits is based on the impugned charge-sheet itself. Since the charge-sheet is illegal, the withholding is also unsustainable. No penalty has been imposed, and no JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :22: OA No.120/275/2025.
finding of guilt exists. The action violates settled law, including State of Bihar v. Jitendra Srivastava (supra). Further, the respondents have, in fact, abused their powers in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6.10 Learned counsel for the applicant concluded his arguments by submitting that :
i. The vigilance enquiry is still under process;
ii. No CVO recommendation exists;
iii. The charge-sheet is without jurisdiction;
iv. The charge memo is illegal and liable to be quashed;
v. The withholding of retirement benefits is unsustainable and ought to be set aside.
Thus, it is prayed that the instant OA deserves to be allowed by this Tribunal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as judgments on which reliance has been placed by the applicant
8. Upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we observe that the applicant was serving as Chief Office Superintendent (IT) in the Personnel Department, Bhavnagar Division, Western Railway, and retired on 28.02.2025 upon attaining the age of superannuation. A Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025 has been issued to the applicant alleging violation of Rule 3(1) and Rule 15(1)(a) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, inter alia, on the ground of his alleged indirect involvement in business relating to CBT (e-Pariksha) software through M/s Gujarat Open Source Solutions (GOSS), a proprietorship firm in the name of his mother. It is not disputed that M/s JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :23: OA No.120/275/2025.
GOSS is owned by the applicant‟s mother and that the applicant was deputed to Ahmedabad Division for assisting in CBT examinations. It is also admitted that a vigilance inquiry was initiated in respect of CBT examinations conducted at Ahmedabad Division and that the applicant was called upon to provide clarifications during such inquiry. The disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet are pending, and no final order has yet been passed. The applicant has been sanctioned provisional pension in terms of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, while gratuity and certain retiral benefits have been withheld pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
9. In light of the rival submissions, the following issues arise for adjudication in this case:
a) Whether the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025 is liable to be quashed at the threshold on the ground of alleged procedural irregularities or lack of jurisdiction?
b) Whether the allegations levelled against the applicant disclose a prima facie case of misconduct warranting disciplinary inquiry?
c) Whether the withholding of gratuity and other retiral benefits during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is illegal?
10. With regard to issue a) as framed above, namely, whether the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 24.02.2025 is liable to be quashed at the threshold on the ground of alleged procedural irregularities or lack of jurisdiction, we observe that it is a settled principle of law that a charge-sheet or show cause notice should not ordinarily be interfered with at the threshold unless it is ex facie without jurisdiction or wholly illegal.
10.1 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, has categorically held that a charge-sheet does not give rise to a cause of action and cannot be quashed unless it is JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :24: OA No.120/275/2025.
shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or issued in abuse of process of law. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639] , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-
cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
10.2 Similarly, in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, it has been held that courts should not interfere at the stage of charge-sheet as it is only a preliminary step in the disciplinary process. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge- sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :25: OA No.120/275/2025.
the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide State of M.P. v. Bani Singh [1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 638 : (1991) 16 ATC 514] , State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570 :
1995 SCC (L&S) 541 : (1995) 29 ATC 546] , Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey [(1995) 3 SCC 134 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 648 : (1995) 29 ATC 538] , Union of India v. Ashok Kacker [1995 Supp (1) SCC 180 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 374 : (1995) 29 ATC 145] , Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan [(1996) 3 SCC 157 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 686 : (1996) 33 ATC 745] , State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1044 : AIR 1998 SC 1833] , Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia [(1998) 9 SCC 131 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 466] , Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan [1999 SCC (L&S) 646] , M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 : AIR 2006 SC 3475] , P.D. Agrawal v. SBI [(2006) 8 SCC 776 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 43] and Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy [(2007) 14 SCC 49 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 440] .)
9. In Forest Deptt. v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury [(2009) 7 SCC 305 :
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 327] (SCC p. 310, para 16) this Court dealt with the issue and observed that delay in concluding the domestic enquiry is not always fatal. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should not (sic) be permitted to continue.
10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327] , Ulagappa v. Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] .)
11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra [(2010) 13 SCC 311 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 :
(1994) 27 ATC 200] .) JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :26: OA No.120/275/2025.
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.
10.3 The instant case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. The contentions of the applicant regarding violation of the Vigilance Manual, absence of questionnaire, or alleged procedural lapses are matters, which can appropriately be raised before the Disciplinary Authority during the inquiry. These do not render the charge-sheet void ab initio.
10.4 Recently, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Rukam Kesh Mishra, reported in 2025 INSC 412, held as under:-
"20. It would, therefore, be profitable to note what is the law declared by this Court on the point as to who can issue the charge-sheet.
21. As far back as in 1970, this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh (1970) 1 SCC 108 held that Article 311(1) does not in terms require that the authority empowered by that provision to dismiss or remove an officer should initiate or conduct the inquiry. This decision could count as the parent decision on the topic, declaring the law in paragraphs „6‟ and „10‟. The said paragraphs are quoted below for ease of understanding as to how Article 311(1) was construed:
"6. Article 311(1) provides that no person who is a member of Civil Service of the Union or of an All-India Service or Civil Service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. This Article does not in terms require that the authority empowered under that provision to dismiss or remove an official, should itself initiate or conduct the enquiry preceding the dismissal or removal of the officer or even that that enquiry should be done at its instance. The only right guaranteed to a civil servant under that provision is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But it is said on behalf of the respondent that that guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that the relevant disciplinary inquiry should JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :27: OA No.120/275/2025.
be initiated and conducted by the authorities mentioned in the Article. The High Court has accepted this contention. We have now to see whether the view taken by the High Court is correct. ***
10. But for the incorporation of Article 311 in the Constitution even in respect of matters provided therein, rules could have been framed under Article 309. The provisions in Article 311 confer additional rights on the civil servants. Hence we are unable to agree with the High Court that the guarantee given under Article 311(1) includes within itself a further guarantee that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a civil servant should also be initiated and conducted by the authorities mentioned in that Article".
(emphasis supplied)
22. Then came the decision in P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General 1993 (1) SCC 419, where this Court reiterated that a departmental proceeding need not be initiated only by the appointing authority and that initiation by a subordinate authority, in the absence of rules, is not vitiated. We consider it appropriate to extract paragraph „4‟ hereunder:
"4. Article 311(1) says that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or a State "shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed". Whether this guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that even the disciplinary proceeding should be initiated only by the appointing authority? It is well known that departmental proceeding consists of several stages: the initiation of the proceeding, the inquiry in respect of the charges levelled against that delinquent officer and the final order which is passed after the conclusion of the inquiry. Article 311(1) guarantees that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. However, it is open to Union of India or a State Government to make any rule prescribing that even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be initiated by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority. Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection to the holder of a civil post. But in absence of any such rule, this right or guarantee does not flow from Article 311 of the Constitution. It need not be pointed out that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer concerned with any evil consequences, and the framers of the Constitution did not consider it necessary to guarantee even that to holders of civil posts under the Union of India or under the State Government. At the same time this will not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of the officer against whom proceeding is to be initiated to take a decision whether any such proceeding should be initiated. In absence of a rule, JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :28: OA No.120/275/2025.
any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding".
(emphasis supplied)
23. Yet again, in Transport Commissioner v. A. Radhakrishna Moorthy (1995) 1 SCC 332, this Court clearly declared the law as follows:
"8. Insofar as initiation of enquiry by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority is concerned, it is well settled now that it is unobjectionable. The initiation can be by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. Only the dismissal/removal shall not be by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Accordingly it is held that this was not a permissible ground for quashing the charges by the Tribunal".
(emphasis supplied)
24. All these decisions were considered by this Court in Inspector General of Police v. Thavasippan (1996) 2 SCC 145, and it was ruled as follows:
"9. ... Generally speaking, it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the proposed penalty or that the enquiry should be conducted by such authority. We do not find anything in the rules which would induce us to read in Rule 3(b)(i) such a requirement. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal that in a case falling under Rule 3(b) the charge memo should be issued by the disciplinary authority empowered to impose the penalties referred to therein and if the charge memo is issued by any lower authority then only that penalty can be imposed which that lower authority is competent to award, is clearly erroneous. We, therefore, allow this appeal". ...
(emphasis supplied)
25. Later decisions of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Vel Raj (1997) 2 SCC 708 and Commissioner of Police v. Jayasurian (1997) 6 SCC 75 also declare the law in the same vein, albeit in respect of different discipline and appeal rules, that a charge-sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority; any other authority, who is the controlling authority, can initiate departmental proceedings by issuing a chargesheet.
26. At this stage, we are reminded of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non queta movere meaning, stand by what has been decided and do not disturb what has been settled. While it is true that courts are not restrained by any principle of law from expressing a different view on a point of law or to distinguish precedents (a topic we wish to advert to briefly a little later), stare decisis need not be disregarded to unsettle settled positions. We would read these precedents (referred to in paragraphs 21 to 25, supra) as settling the law that unless the relevant discipline and appeal rules applicable to an officer/employee of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so require, disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge-sheet cannot be faulted solely on the ground that either the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority has not issued the same or approved it. These precedents have stood the test of time and having full application to the case at hand, could not have been lightly JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :29: OA No.120/275/2025.
overlooked. A holistic consideration of all these precedents by the High Court was certainly the need of the hour. Thavasippan (supra) had considered the precedents in Shardul Singh (supra), P. V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra) and A. Radhakrishna Moorthy (supra) and P. V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra) was placed before the coordinate Bench in B.V. Gopinath (supra). We are anchored in a belief that had the High Court looked into these precedents, the conclusion would have certainly been otherwise.
27. Be that as it may, the governing rules in B.V. Gopinath (supra) and Promod Kumar (supra) being different, notwithstanding the similarity in language of Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules, reliance placed by the Division Bench on the ratio of the said two decisions seems to be wholly inapt. An erroneous conclusion was arrived at contrary to the settled position of law and we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order is manifestly flawed and hence, unsustainable."
Accordingly, this Tribunal finds that the contentions as noted above on this aspect of the applicant are not sustainable and as such the same is not a sustainable ground to interfere with the charge-sheet at this stage.
11. With regard to issue b) as framed above, namely, whether the allegations levelled against the applicant disclose a prima facie case of misconduct warranting disciplinary inquiry, we observe that the scope of judicial review at the stage of charge-sheet is limited to examining whether the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose misconduct. In the present case, the allegations include that the applicant‟s close familial connection with the proprietor of M/s GOSS; his role as In-charge of CBT software and examinations; his deputation to Ahmedabad Division for managing CBT software procured from the said firm; and the similarity of software and circumstances suggesting possible indirect involvement. Whether these allegations ultimately stand proved or not, is a matter of evidence and cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
11.1 At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357, has held that the Tribunal cannot go into the correctness or truth of the charges at the stage of charge-sheet.
JITENDRA 2026.04.13
RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30'
:30: OA No.120/275/2025.
Further, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.V. Perumal, (1996) 5 SCC 474, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that even suspicion of misconduct based on material is sufficient to proceed with departmental inquiry. We further observe that it is a settled proposition of law, consistently reiterated in recent judicial pronouncements by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and Hon‟ble High Courts, that at the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet, the Tribunal or Court cannot go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The truth or otherwise of the allegations is a matter to be examined by the Disciplinary Authority during the course of inquiry. The scope of judicial review at this stage is limited to examining whether the charge-sheet has been issued by a competent authority and whether the allegations, on their face, disclose misconduct. Thus, the contention of the applicant that there is no evidence or that the allegations are false cannot be examined at this stage in the present OA. The charge-sheet discloses a prima facie case requiring inquiry.
12. With regard to issue c) as framed above, namely, whether the withholding of gratuity and other retiral benefits during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is illegal, we find that the applicant has challenged the withholding of gratuity and leave encashment. It is not in dispute that disciplinary proceedings were instituted prior to the applicant‟s retirement. In such circumstances, Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 squarely apply. As per Rule 10(1)(c), gratuity is not payable until conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
12.1 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179, has upheld the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement where initiated prior thereto. Further, in State of Orissa v. Kalicharan Mohapatra, (1998) 6 SCC 411, it has been held that withholding of retiral benefits pending inquiry is permissible under statutory rules. The reliance placed by the Applicant on State of Bihar v. Jitendra JITENDRA 2026.04.13 RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30' :31: OA No.120/275/2025.
Kumar Srivastava, (supra) is misplaced, as in that case there was no statutory provision authorizing withholding. However, in the present case, the Pension Rules specifically provide for such withholding. Moreover, the applicant has admittedly been granted provisional pension in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondents in withholding gratuity and certain benefits cannot be said to be illegal.
13. In view of the findings and analysis on the above issues, as recorded in the preceding paragraphs, we do not find any merit in the present OA, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the instant OA shall not be construed as a finding on the merits of the case i.e. alleged charges levelled against the applicant in the charge memorandum.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
NK/jrm
JITENDRA 2026.04.13
RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30'
:32: OA No.120/275/2025.
JITENDRA 2026.04.13
RAJ MEHTA 11:32:08+05'30'