IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.793 of 2007 ------ 1. The Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairla Place, Calcutta. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Danapur. 3. The Senior Operating Manager, Eastern Railway, Danapur. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Eastern Railway, Danapur. ….. Petitioner. Versus Sri R.H.Hashmi Son of Late Bashiruddin, Ex-Station Master, Eastern Railway, Jehanabad, Resident of Mohalla- Sultanganj C/O Awar Kadri, Behind Aswar Market, Mughalanibagh, District-Patna. …… Respondent. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr.Ashok Kumar Keshari, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. M.P.Dixit, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 12th November, 2008 The Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway and other functionaries of Railways have preferred this writ petition against the order dated 25th May, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, whereby the Tribunal set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and granted to the respondent consequential (financial) benefits and other incidental reliefs. 2. The respondent- R.H.Hashmi (hereinafter to be referred, - 2 - „the delinquent‟) was at the relevant time working as Station Master, Eastern Railway, Banka Ghat. Vide memorandum dated 29th April, 1992 he was chargesheeted of having committed misconduct of misappropriation by short remittance of different amounts on various days. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. The delinquent submitted his explanation. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal of the delinquent from service with effect from 10th June, 1993. The delinquent challenged the order of punishment before the appellate authority and the revisional authority unsuccessfully. He, then, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority. The Tribunal by its order dated 14th December, 1995 quashed and set aside the orders of disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority after remitted the matter back to the petitioners to hold a fresh disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. 3. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the delinquent. The delinquent submitted his show cause. The department as well as the delinquent let in their respective evidence. The disciplinary authority, in the light of the report received from the Inquiry Officer vide his order dated 21st March, 1997 held that the delinquent was guilty of misconduct and ordered reduction of delinquent‟s pay in the time scale from - 3 - Rs.1900/- to Rs.1760/- permanently. The delinquent preferred appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed by the appellate authority. 4. The delinquent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal again challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 05th November, 1999 quashed and set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed it to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 05th November, 1999, the appellate authority passed a fresh order on 28th March, 2000 affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. 5. Yet again, the delinquent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not adhered to by the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as at the back of the delinquent, he inspected the record at Banka Ghat Railway Station and took into consideration that record while giving its findings. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority vide its order dated 25th May, 2006. As indicated above, it is this order that has been challenged in the writ petition. 6. That the Inquiry Officer inspected the record at Banka Ghat Railway Station without notice to the delinquent at his back is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. From the inquiry - 4 - report, it is apparent that the Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the record that he examined and inspected at Banka Ghat Railway Station at the back of the delinquent while recording its findings in the inquiry report. This is what has been observed by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report: “ ………… The undersigned personally visited Bankaghat Station also to see the records whatever available there. ………….. On perusal of the records of station, it was found that the entire amount was accepted at shortage in booking by Sri R.S.Hashmi.” 7. It needs no emphasis that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and that such proceedings have to be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner and in accord with the principles of natural justice. If the Inquiry Officer desired to examine and inspect the record available at Banka Ghat Railway Station which could have thrown some light into the conduct of the delinquent, he ought to have given notice of such inspection to the delinquent and inspection of such documents ought to have been done in the presence of the delinquent. Moreover, if the Inquiry Officer was of the view that the said record, prima facie, established the charge of short remittances, he ought to have sought explanation from the delinquent in this regard before acting on such record. He did not adopt either of such course and used material against the delinquent of which delinquent was never informed of. 8. The Tribunal in this regard has made the following observations: “8. The applicant has alleged in para 4.13 of the - 5 - application that after closing the proceeding, the Inquiry Officer had personally gone to the Banka Ghat Station and had gone into the records behind the applicant. Para 4.13 has not been answered but this point has been touched in para 15 of the written statement while replying to para 4.14 of the application stating therein that the Inquiry Officer had held the applicant responsible based upon the documentary evidence produced during the inquiry proceeding. In the same breath it has been claimed that the Inquiry Officer had committed no illegality by visiting Banka Ghat Station for looking into the records. It has simply been denied that anything was conducted behind the back of the applicant but it has not been claimed that the inspection was made in presence of the applicant and copies of those documents were given to him or that he was given an opportunity to explain those documents. 9. In para 15 of the written statement it has been claimed that on the basis of the allegations it was necessary to make a physical check and that the Inquiry Officer could always enquire into anything for coming to a just conclusion. 10. It is true that for coming to a just conclusion, the Inquiry Officer, if it is brought to his notice, can call for documents and base his findings upon those but only after he has provided copies thereof to the proceedee granting him opportunity to meet those documents, not otherwise. Such inspection at Banka Ghat Station has been termed by the Inquiry Officer himself as “Personal Inspection.” 11. Therefore, from the materials, as they stand on the record, it would appear that the applicant not only had used the documents not mentioned in the charge report, there being no material on the record to show that those documents were actually called in course of proceeding and copies thereof had been given to the proceedee to explain away those, but the Inquiry Officer also appears to have acted as a prosecutor by going out himself hunting for documents to nail down the proceedee. This he could not have done without vitiating the departmental proceeding and prejudicing the proceedee. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision in the case of Nag Narayan Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors; 2001[3] ATJ 158. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police; 1999 SCC [L&S] 429. Their Lordships therein had held that reliance on a document which was not mentioned in the chargesheet could not be relied upon or even referred to by the disciplinary authority. In that case, the disciplinary authority had recorded his own finding relying upon a voucher. That document was not - 6 - mentioned in the chargesheet in which only two documents were proposed to be relied upon. That documents, it was had to be excluded from consideration and it could not have been relied or even referred to. Therefore, the documents that were not mentioned in the memorandum of charges, nor shown to have been produced before the Inquiry Officer after giving a copy thereof to the applicant, could not have been relied upon by the respondents to reach at this conclusion, nor such a conclusion could have been upheld by the appellate authority. 13. In that view of the matter, even the second departmental inquiry appears to have been vitiated, hence the orders at Annexures- A/10 & A/16, i.e., the orders of the disciplinary authority awarding punishment and the orders of the appellate authority, cannot be sustained.” 9. We find ourselves in agreement with the consideration of the matter by the Tribunal and affirm the finding recorded by it that the delinquent was not given notice or copies of the documents to meet them during the course of inspection. Apparently, the inspection of the record at Banka Ghat Railway Station at the back of the delinquent and consideration of such material without seeking any explanation from the delinquent suffers from serious infirmity of law and infraction of principles of natural justice. 10. We, thus, find that the writ petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. We order, accordingly. No order as to costs. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil