K.V. Brahmananda Reddy vs Union Of India & Ors.

(As per Hon’ble Dr. LataBaswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Applicant was appointed to the Indian Railway Accounts Service (Group ‘A’) by the President and, while holding a Senior Administrative Grade post, served on deputation as Special Secretary in the Government of Andhra Pradesh from 25.10.2007 to 26.06.2009.

It is submitted by the applicant that the CBI registered RC No.19(A)/2011 on 17.08.2011 in relation to the VANPIC project and filed its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 13.08.2012 against 14 accused, including the Applicant, alleging conspiracy and undue favour to VANPIC Ports Pvt. Ltd., resulting in alleged wrongful gain to the company and failure to protect the financial interests of the State Government.The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad took cognizance of the alleged offences under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction remain pending.

The Applicant, while serving as Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, retired on 31.03.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. Although a Charge Memorandum was purportedly dated 30.03.2017, the same was not served upon him before his retirement and was communicated only subsequently, vide letter dated 22.01.2018. The Applicant submits that the allegations in the departmental Charge Memorandum are substantially identical to those in the pending criminal case and that the evidence relied upon in the departmental proceedings forms part of the evidence in the criminal prosecution. Thus, both proceedings arise from the same facts, transactions and allegations relating to VANPIC.

The Applicant has accordingly challenged the disciplinary proceedings, inter alia, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction under Rule 15 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, incompetence of the authority initiating the proceedings, non-service of the Charge Memorandum before retirement, and the illegality and prejudice caused by simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings based on the same allegations and evidence. Being aggrieved the Applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief as mentioned above.

After notice respondents have filed their reply and opposed the relief of the applicants and submitted that the Applicant, an officer of the Indian Railway Accounts Service, was sent on deputation to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 28.10.2005 and worked as Special Secretary, Infrastructure & Investment Department, till his repatriation to the Railways on 26.06.2009. During his deputation, a CBI case, RC No.19(A)/2011, was registered in connection with the allegations relating to his official conduct. The Applicant was arrested on 15.05.2012 and, having remained in custody for more than 48 hours, was deemed to have been placed under suspension from the said date. He remained in judicial custody till 07.10.2013 and was released on 08.10.2013. Upon review, the Railway Board informed that his deemed suspension was not extended and consequently he ceased to be under suspension w.e.f. 17.01.2014.

Consequent upon the CBI investigation, the Railway Board decided to initiate major penalty disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant for the alleged misconduct committed during his deputation. Accordingly, Charge Memorandum No. E(O)I-2017/PU-2/SC/31 dated 30.03.2017 was issued under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. Attempts were made on 31.03.2017 to serve the charge memorandum personally upon the Applicant at his office and thereafter at Central Hospital, Lallaguda and CARE Hospital, Musheerabad, but the Applicant could not be personally served owing to his critical medical condition and the advice of the treating doctors not to disturb him. The charge memorandum was consequently sent to his residential address through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. The Respondents contend that such service was valid under Rule 26 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, and that the subsequent return of the article as unclaimed/addressee absent did not invalidate the service. The order appointing the Inquiry Officer along with the charge memorandum was subsequently acknowledged by the Applicant vide communication dated 18.10.2018.

The Respondents further submit that Rule 15 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 has no application, since the Applicant had already been repatriated from the borrowing Government and joined the Railways on 26.06.2009, whereas the disciplinary proceedings were initiated only on 30.03.2017. The Railway Board was therefore competent to initiate proceedings under Rule 8 of the Rules. Further, since the proceedings had been instituted before the Applicant's retirement, they continued notwithstanding his retirement in terms of Rule 9(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. As the Applicant failed to participate in the proceedings despite due service, the disciplinary authority ordered the matter to proceed ex parte under Rule 9(23) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. The Respondents also submit that pendency or outcome of the criminal case does not bar departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof in a departmental inquiry is preponderance of probabilities. In support of their stand, the Respondents relied upon Jansatta Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. M/s Organic India, 2006 (1) Raj 124 (Del); Virender Singh v. Prem Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 65; Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, (2000) SCC (L&S) 601; JagadishSekhri v. Union of India, 1970 SLR 571 (Del) regarding valid service through registered post; Union of India & Others v. Upendra Singh, Civil Appeal No.7484/1993; Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, Civil Appeal No.2333/2017; S.S. Karkhal v. Union of India & Others, OA No.3168/2013, CAT Principal Bench, decided on 05.01.2015; and OA No.260/2016, CAT Cuttack Bench, decided on 04.04.2016, regarding non-interference with disciplinary proceedings at the interlocutory stage. On simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings, reliance was placed upon State of Karnataka & Another v. T. Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6 SCC 455 and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan, (1997) 11 SCC 239. The Respondents also relied upon the DoPT O.M. dated 01.08.2007, circulated by Railway Board's letter dated 09.10.2007, and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. CBI, Criminal Appeal Nos.1375–1376/2013, decided on 28.03.2018, regarding continuation of departmental proceedings and interim stay.

In view of the above, the Respondents contend that the charge memorandum was validly issued by the competent authority, duly served in accordance with Rule 26 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, and that the Applicant's challenge is premature as the disciplinary inquiry had yet to reach its logical conclusion and adequate opportunity to defend was available to him in the inquiry. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or violation of the prescribed procedure. The Respondents, therefore, pray that the Original Application be dismissed as premature and devoid of merit and is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

To refute the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating the pleadings and grounds taken in the O.A.

Learned counsel for the respondents filed dispensed with petition vide M.A. No. 162/2025.

Heard both sides and perused all the material available on record.

When the matter was taken up for final hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had filed the present O.A. challenging the charge memo dated 30.03.2017, which contained only one charge, as mentioned below:-

According to the applicant, the charge memo dated 30.03.2017 was sought to be served upon him after his retirement on 31.03.2017. A letter dated 12.10.2017 was issued seeking acknowledgment of the order dated 27.09.2017 appointing Shri S. Subramanyam, Retired Additional Member, Railway Board, as the Inquiry Officer. The applicant contended that despite information regarding the alleged misconduct being available since 2012, no action was taken till one day before his retirement. The charge memo was served only after retirement vide letter dated 22.01.2018. He raised objection regarding non-compliance with Rule 26 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, and requested that the proceedings be dropped. The representation was rejected vide the impugned letter dated 22.01.2018, advising him to participate in the inquiry.

The applicant further contended that the charge in the departmental proceedings is identical to the charge in the pending criminal case before the CBI Court arising out of RC No. 19(A)/2011. At the admission stage, this Tribunal granted interim relief on 05.03.2018 and stayed the departmental enquiry. The respondents later filed M.A. No. 286/2021 for vacation of the stay. Vide order dated 23.02.2023, the interim order was vacated and liberty was granted to the respondents ^{to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.}Central Administrative Tribunal

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that although the stay was vacated, the department has now decided not to proceed with the departmental inquiry till the final outcome of the criminal case.

We have carefully perused the entire record. The respondents had made efforts to serve the charge memo dated 30.03.2017 both by hand and through registered post. The applicant was arrested on 15.05.2012 in connection with the CBI case and remained in custody beyond 48 hours, resulting in deemed suspension. The Railway Board initiated major penalty proceedings and issued the charge memorandum on 30.03.2017.

When the application for vacation of stay was considered, this Tribunal, vide order dated 23.02.2023, vacated the interim order dated 05.03.2018 with the following observations:

Even after vacation of the stay, the matter continued to be adjourned. When it was finally taken up, we called for the current status of the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Inquiry Officer, vide report dated 22.07.2024, recommended that the inquiry be kept in abeyance ^{pending the final decision in the criminal case. The matter is presently pending before}Central Administrative Tribunal the Disciplinary Authority.

We are constrained to observe that the Inquiry Officer, whose duty is to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure and record findings on the charges, has chosen not to proceed with the inquiry and has instead recommended awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

In view of the above, clarification was sought vide order dated 16.04.2025. The respondents filed M.A. No. 162/2025 placing on record the subsequent developments. It is stated that after vacation of the stay, several officers declined to act as Inquiry Officer. Eventually, Shri B.B. Verma, Retired FC/Railway Board, was appointed. He commenced the inquiry, in which the applicant also participated. By report dated 22.07.2024, he recommended that the matter be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal case. The Policy Branch opined that the said report cannot be treated as an inquiry report under the Rules. The Disciplinary Authority (Member Finance), after considering the matter, passed a speaking order dated 20.02.2025 directing that the disciplinary proceedings be kept in abeyance till the decision in the pending criminal case.

Thus, on the one hand, the respondents had sought and obtained vacation of the interim stay with a view to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry. On the other hand, they have subsequently decided to keep the said proceedings in abeyance till the final outcome of the criminal case. The applicant is being paid provisional pension. The non-finalisation of the departmental proceedings does not, in any manner, adversely affect his rights as a pensioner at this stage.

In the above circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the matter at this stage. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of with liberty to both parties to proceed further in accordance with law as and when they deem it appropriate. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.