Indian Railways study material

2. The charge-sheet must be clear, concise
and contain full particularity. The charges
must be precise, definite, and convey to the
CO the exact nature of the alleged
misconduct so that he can put up an effective
defence. A vague statement of charges which
does not unfold the exact nature and
particulars of the misconduct is of no use and
vitiates the entire proceedings.

3. The charge sheet must not be vague. The
allegations should be concrete and specific
with full particularity and should not leave out
any thing which the CO should know to make
out his defence -
S.S.C.Chakravorty V State of
West Bengal 1971 SC

4. • The charge sheet key to DA proceedings.
• It must have 3 basic aspects
• Substance, Clarity and unambiguity about
• the specific charge supported by the
• documents and or witnesses.
• Signed by the competent authority
• It must be communicated and served
• according to the rules prescribed.

5. The issue of charge sheet is is an essential
requirement. The employee must be told
what are the charges leveled against him
and the allegations on which they are based.
He must also be told of the evidence on which
the charges are sought to be established so
that he can put forward his defence.
Kermchand V/S Union of India, 1958 SC.

6. However, the charge sheet is a matter of
substance and not of form. Where full
particulars were communicated through the
memos, the SC did not accept the contention
that no formal charge sheet had been issued.
“There is no magic in the work charge sheet” -
the court observed- K.C.Tandon V/S Union of
India 1974 SC.

7. The charge sheet must be issued in writing.
A hasty verbal reading of the charge sheet
does not constitute service of the charge
sheet -K.S.Tiwary V/S G.M. High Explosive
Factroy1988 ATC.
It is no doubt true that the protection of
Article 311(1) does not cover the mere issue
of charge sheet but it does not mean that a
charge sheet can be issued by any authority.
It can only be issued by the DA itself or any
authority so authorized by statutory rules.-
V/State of V/s S.Singh 1970 SCC. Where
there are no rules it can be issued by
controlling authority- 1993 SC

8. The reason is that an attempt to serve the
employee by this method is more reasonable
and if he chooses to refuse service, the risk
must be his and he must pay for the consequences.
The principles applicable to the service of summons
by the Court are entirely different and are not
applicable to the departmental inquiries.-
J.Sekhri V/S Union of India 1975- Guwhati
However, “left without address” or that he was
not found on repeated visits and also not
disclosed where he has gone, do not conclusively
establish that he deliberately or knowingly did not
accept the official communication. Therefore, there
is no presumption of service in such cases.- Tyagi- V/S
Union of India 1994 SC

9. NO objection to the issue of corrigendum or an
amendment subsequent to the subsequent to
the issue but should issue before regular hearing
begins.
Amendment should be minor, like, some omission
of a clerical nature, adding deleting from the list
of documents or list of witnesses.
If otherwise, either a fresh charge sheet in
substitution of the earlier one should issue or he
may be booked for the additional charge
separately.

10. The charge sheet can be issued by the
competent DA or by any other authority
empowered by rules to do so.- State of MP V/S
Shrdul Singh 1970 SC.
The charge sheet has to be delivered in either
in person or registered post. Mere
communication is not sufficient.- Union of India
V/S D.Karekar 1998 SC.
Service of the letter is complete even if the CO
omits or receive the letter sent to him by the
Registered post- N.K.Jain V/S U.O.I. 1988 ATC.

11. It is important that either the order of notice
is served on the employee in person or sent
through registered post or some procedure
prescribed in the rules is adopted.
Any other mode of intimation should not be
adopted without deliberate decision to do so
because it may involve legal complication
relating to personal rights.

12. It is permissible to issue a fresh charge sheet in
substitution of the earlier one with substantially
the same contents. The 2nd charge sheet is
tenable only if the earlier charges were not a
adjudicated upon. - H.Singh V/S UOI1987 ATC.
However two precautions are to be taken
namely.-
The fresh charge sheet is issued before the
inquiry into the earlier charge sheet starts-
R.Rom V/S UOI 1987 ATC
The earlier charge sheet is not dropped or
cancelled Parmar V/S UOI GBCB 1987.

13. But if the charge sheet is simply withdrawn,
there is no objection in issue of a fresh charge
sheet on the same subject. The reason is that
the meaning of the word ‘withdrawal’ is ‘to take
back’, ‘to recall’ hence, there is no infirmity in
the issue of fresh charge sheet- H.Singh V/S
U.O.I. ATC.
Where a charge sheet is issued by an authority
not competent to do so, it may be withdrawn
and a fresh one may be issued in substitution,
over the signature of proper authority. But it
must be issued either before the inquiry begins
or fresh evidence should be recorded thereafter
Sharma V CMA 1987 P Bench.

14. •Precise substantive and well supported by
documents/witnesses charge sheet is the key.
•Minor Amendment possible before RH.
•Major changes will require a fresh Charge sheet,
which can be issued either before the RH or else
fresh hearing to be recorded thereafter.
•Delay in the issue may be vitiate the proceedings
•Competent authority need to sign the charge
sheet.
•Proper service either personally or by registered
post with AD or as per prescribed procedure.

15. Although the DA rules do not prescribe any
time limit for the issue of a charge sheet
against
a serving employee the trend in judicial thinking
is that an inordinate delay in the process vitiate
the proceedings-
State of MP V/S Bani Singh 1990 SC.

17. • Some of the consequences can be:
• Embarrassment for the administration
before the court.
• Embarrassment before the C.V.C. The
case gets included in the report of the
Commission to the Parliament.
• An otherwise good case may be lost
due to mistake giving unintended reprieve
to the CO leading to loss of face.

18. • Charge sheet.
• Inquiry, where necessary.
• Consideration of IO’s Report, defence of
the CO and orders of the Disciplinary
Authority.
• Appeal and or Revision.

19. • Mistakes in DAR occur despite plethora of
instruction s and frequent training either
due to ignorance of rules or for lack of
application of mind.
• Mistakes in DAR are avoidable
• DAR is a serious matter
• Mistakes in DAR have serious consequences.

20. • A mistake may cause undue harassment to
a Government Servant such as :
• He may lose his promotion or it may be
delayed.
• He may suffer monetary loss.
• He may suffer mental and social agony.
• Thus the Administration’s image suffers.
Hence mistakes must be avoided, while
dealing with DAR cases.
• DAR cases must, therefore, be dealt with
serious application of mind.

21. • Vigilance officer acting as PO
• Charged Officer
• Inquiry Officer
• Disciplinary Authority.
• Appellate or Reversionary Authority.

22. • Mistakes occur due to various interactions
between the key players at different
stages of DAR proceedings.
• It is necessary to know the rules and their
correct interpretation.
• DA proceedings being quasi- judicial, rules
must be followed.
• Natural justice although the cardinal
principle but often severely abused.

23. • In the Chargesheet
• In the Inquiry
• In the examination of the IO’s Report
• In the orders of the DA.
• In the orders of Appellate or Revisionary
Authority.

24. • It is vague, not clear, not precise, lacking in
substance & details and factually incorrect.
• Too many articles and at times omitting
some major ones. They are not based on
documentary evidence. There should be
one
charge for one misconduct.
• RUDs are not specifically connected to the
articles of charge in the Imputation. Large
numbers of RUDs included many of them
not even relevant. Full file made as RUD,
when only one letter is relevant.

25. • Use of non-standard term or title as
heading for the RUD. If this is not properly
connected in the statement of imputation,
this can cause great confusion later on,
when the case goes to UPSC.
• List of witness is not given. If the
statement of a person recorded during
investigation is to be used in the charge
sheet, it is essential to name him as
prosecution witness in annexure IV

26. • Issuing the draft charge sheet without
proper check/verification.
• Modifying a charge sheet issued by the
President without consulting the Board.
• Not signed by the competent authority
or signed by a co-accused. It may not
by DA but must be issued and expressed
in his name. It must be signed by the
authority in his own name over his own
stamp.
• It is not essential to sign each annexure,
although it is desirable.

27. • The charge sheet modified incorrectly. A
fresh charge sheet can be issued by
withdrawing old one with endorsement that
it is being withdrawn without prejudice to its
right to issue a new one provided the old one
has not been adjudicated, cancelled or
dropped.
• Small clerical errors can however be
corrected during the course of inquiry.
• Charge sheet is key to DAR. Hence due care
must be taken for its preparation

28. • Chargesheet not served properly.
Acknowledgement not obtained. Without
proper service DAR can not proceed.
• Personal service is the most preferred form.
If CO refuses, the fact may be recorded. No
witness is normally needed but may be had.
• Otherwise, it may be sent by registered post
with AD. Refusal to receive is considered
deemed delivery but ‘addressee not found’
can not be considered a legal service.

29. • In case of absconding CO, the Charge
sheet may be sent to all known addresses
and keep endorsement of the Post Office
on the cover as record. A copy may also be
pasted on the notice board and at his
known residence.
• In such cases, action may be taken either
exparte or under 14(ii) of DAR.
• Allowing additional documents to CO for
his defence by the DA.

30. • Giving undue time for defence reply to CO.
• Allowing inspection of documents for
minor
penalty in all cases. This can be done only
where inquiry is prescribed.
• Allowing additional documents to CO for
his defence by the DA.

31. • When no defence has been received even
after reminder, the fact to be recorded,
before remitting the case to inquiry.
• Remitting the case to inquiry by DA
without considering CO’s defence.
Reasons to be recorded by the DA.
‘After careful consideration of the CO’s
representation, it is considered necessary
to bring out the facts through inquiry.
The case is accordingly remitted to
inquiry.’

32. • Dropping the charge or imposing minor
penalty in case of Major charge sheet
after consideration of defence without
consulting C.V.C., where its ist stage
advice was taken.
• Appointment of IO/PO, before remitting
the case to inquiry.
• Instead of waiting endlessly for CO’s
reply
it is much safer to remit the case to
inquiry. There is no breach of natural
justice in such cases.

33. • Appointment of IO/PO without consulting
Vigilance for nomination. In C.V.C. advised
case, this is very important.
• Appointment order not signed by the DA.
Following documents to be given to I.O.by DA
* Charge sheet with all annexures.
* Written defence, if submitted by CO.
* Evidence providing delivery of the Charge
Sheet to the CO.
* Copy of order appointing the PO

34. • Documents not supplied, as required by
CO and allowed by IO.
• Not sparing key witness or defence Assistant.
• Not replying to IO particularly when charge
of bias against IO has been leveled.
• Staying DA proceedings due to Court case
without proper ground or examination. They
need not be adjourned or stayed:
• On receipt of notice under section 80 CPC
• On receipt of intimation of filing a writ
petition.

35. • On receipt of mere show cause notice from
Court asking:
• Why petition should not be admitted.
• Why proceedings should not be stayed.
• Why the writ/order should not be issued.
• It should be stayed if competent Court
issues injunction or clear stay order.
• No disciplinary proceedings should be
started subsequent to initiation of court
case, if they deter or intimidate the CO from
proceeding with court case.

36. • Section 19(4) of CAT cannot be construed to
automatically stay DA proceedings on
admission of the original application of CO
by the CAT.
• For stay or injunction specific orders under
section 24 of CAT will have to be issued by
following prescribed procedures.
• Undue delay in inquiry. No monitoring done.
• Inquiry must be based on prescribed
procedures. It must be ensured.

37. • Dy.CPO(G) should examine the report
immediately after it is received for the
following:
• All RUDs mentioned in the report are
available with the PO in original.
• Deposition of witnesses.
• Delay order sheet
• CO’s and PO’s brief in original.

38. • Mandatory examination of CO by IO under
rule 9 (21) on circumstances of the case
appearing against him, in case, he has not
appeared as witness.
• Clear cut finding has been given.
• IO’s report in five copies.
•If necessary, IO may be asked to fulfill the
deficiencies, if any.

39. • IO’s report sent to CO for his representation
without obtaining 2nd stage advice of CVC
• IO’s report put up to DA, who records his
findings or even communicates to CO
without consulting CVC.
• Asking IO to modify his report by sending his
disagreement memo.
• Sending the report without vigilance and
tentative comments of DA to the Board.

40. • Modifying CVC advice (II stage), while
issuing disagreement memo to the CO
• Passing final orders without considering
the representation of the CO
• Pass final orders in variance with the CVC
advice.
• Communicate provisional orders to the CO
in case of disagreement with CVC advice.
• Sending case to UPSC, in case of retired
staff without complying with the laid down
UPSC proforma or actual verification.

41. • Not giving grounds for disagreeing with IO’s
findings to the CO, while calling for his
defence. This must relate to the facts of
the case and not beyond. The disagreement
not in line with II stage advice of CVC
• Not giving grounds for differing with CVC
advice in provisional orders. Again this must’
relate to the facts of the case and not beyond.
• Mention of CVC advice in the speaking orders.

42. Not verifying his competency to impose the
penalty.
Not verifying actual penalty imposed- major
or minor.
Imposing any Administrative action like
counseling etc after DAR action.
Not obtaining and sending acknowledgement
of NIP by CO to the Board
Not informing CBI about NIP in CBI case.
This has to be done by the Vigilance

43. • Not routing the file through Vigilance, in case
of NGO particularly, when the DAR case is a
composite one started on CVC advice.
• Passing orders in appeal or revision to
modify orders in variance with CVC advice.
• In composite case, consultation with CVC
is mandatory.

44. • In case of non-CVC case, concerning NGO,
passing orders in variance with Vigilance
advice - Only in Major penalty cases
• In minor penalty case, concerning NGO, not
sending a copy of NIP to Vigilance.
No consultation with Vigilance is necessary
even in case action proposed is in variance
with the advice of Vigilance.