The Chief Commercial Manager, South ... vs G. Ratnam & Ors on 22 August, 2007
"17. We shall now examine whether on the facts and
the material available on record, non-adherence of the
instructions as laid down in paragraphs 704 and 705 of
the Manual would invalidate the departmental
proceedings initiated against the respondents and
rendering the consequential orders of penalty imposed
upon the respondents by the authorities, as held by the
High Court in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that
the departmental traps were conducted by the
investigating officers when the respondents were on
official duty undertaking journey on trains going from
one destination to another destination. The Tribunal in its
order noticed that the decoy passengers deployed by the
investigation officers were RPF Constables in whose
presence the respondents allegedly collected excess
amount for arranging sleeper class reservation
accommodation etc. to the passengers. The transaction
between the decoy passengers and the respondents was
reported to have been witnessed by the RPF Constables.
In the facts and circumstances of the matters, the
Tribunal held that the investigations were conducted by
the investigating officers in violation of the mandatory
Instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the
Vigilance Manual, 1996, on the basis of which inquiries
were held by the Enquiry Officer which finally resulted
in the imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the
Railway Authority. The High Court in its impugned
judgment has come to the conclusion that the Inquiry
Reports in the absence of joining any independent
witnesses in the departmental traps, are found inadequate
and where the Instructions relating to such departmental
trap cases are not fully adhered to, the punishment
imposed upon the basis of such defective traps are not
sustainable under law. The High Court has observed that
in the present cases the service of some RPF Constables
and Railway staff attached to the Vigilance Wing were
utilised as decoy passengers and they were also
associated as witnesses in the traps. The RPF Constables,
in no terms, can be said to be independent witnesses and
non- association of independent witnesses by the
investigating officers in the investigation of the
departmental trap cases has caused prejudice to the rights
of the respondents in their defence before the Enquiry
Officers.