THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD AND ORS. versus G. RATNAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 22-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, 
A 
SECUNDERABAD AND ORS. 
v. 
G. RA TNAM AND ORS. 
AUGUST 22, 2007 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Administrative law: Administrative instructions-Indian Railways 
Vigilance Manual, 1996-Paragraphs 704 and 705 - Non-adherence of, by c 
Investigating Officer during investigation of departmental·trap cases against 
employees-ticket examiners on official duty-Effect of-Held: Would not vitiate 
the departmental proceedings initiated against the employees-Instructions 
in paragraphs 704 and 705 are procedural in character and not substantive-
Instructions have been issued for information and guidance of Investigating 
Officers-Administrative Rules, Regulations and Instructions having no D 
statutory force do not confer any legally enforceable rights on the delinquent 
even if any of the directions is ignored-Courts below not justified in setting 
aside the termination of employees based on departmental proceedings 
initiated without adhering to the Instructions, and directing re-instatement-
Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966-Railway Services (Discipline and E 
Appeal) Rules, 1968-Service law: 
Respondents in the first and third appeal were working as Head Train 
ticket Examiner and respondent in the second appeal was working as Train 
ticket Examiner. The Vigilance Officer of Railways laid departmental trap by 
J. 
deploying decoy passenger in separate trains, when the respondents were on 
official duty undertaking journey on trains going from one destination to F 
another destiPation. In the process of raid, respondents were found defaulting 
in discharge of their official duties •. They demanded more money against the 
EFf amount from the decoy passenger. Investigating Officer submitted report 
to the Railway Authority. The Authority issued charge sheet stating that the 
respondents failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted G 
in a manner of unbecoming of Railway servant and thereby they have violated 
Rule no. 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of Rule No~ 26 of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 
1966. Enquiry Officer conducted Departmental Inquiry and found .the charges 
proved against the respondents-delinquent. In the departmental proceedings, 
259 
H 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 9 S.C.R. 
A the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of removal from service upon the 
respondents. 
Aggrieved, respondents filed applications before the tribunal 
challenging the order. Tribunal allowed the applications and quashed the 
orders interalia on the grounds, hoiding that the investigating agency had 
B conducted the departmental traps against the respondents in violation of the 
mandatory provisions as contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Indian 
Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996; that the RPF constables were deployed as 
decoy passengers and constables from the same force witnes_sed the 
transaction between the decoy passengers and the respondents and as a result 
C thereof the investigations were found defective which resulted in prejudice to 
the respondents to defend their cases in the departmental proceedings initiated 
against them; and that the non-compliance of the said provisions vitiated the 
disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the order imposing penalty upon the 
respondents was invalid and illegal. Tribunal directed reinstatement of 
respondents in :>ervice. High Court upheld the order of the tribunal holding 
D that the RPF Constables cannot be said to be independent witnesses and Inquiry 
Reports in the absence of joining any independent witnesses in the 
departmental traps were not adequate and where the Instructions relating to 
such departmental trap cases were not fully adhered to, the punishment 
imposed upon the basis of such defective traps were unsustainable under law. 
E Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Non-adherence of the mandatory Instructions and Guidelines 
contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual, 
F 1996 would not vitiate the departmental proce_edings initiated against the 
:.. 
respondents by the Railway Authority. Such finding and reasoning are wholly 
unjustified and cannot be sustained. (Para 19) (271-G, II) 
2.1. Paragraphs 704 and 705 of Vigilance Manual, 1996 cover the 
procedures and guidelines to be followed by the investigating officers, who 
G are entrusted with the task of investigation of trap cases and departmental 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.