AI Insights
The case revolves around a writ petition filed by P.V. Padmaia, an Accounts Assistant, challenging the disciplinary actions taken against her by the South Central Railway. The disciplinary actions were initiated by the 3rd respondent, who was acting in an in-charge capacity and not as a regular appointee. The petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent lacked the authority to issue the charge memo and corrigendum due to his in-charge status, which was supported by Master Circular No.67 and Fundamental Rule 49. The respondents argued that the 3rd respondent was competent to initiate the proceedings. The High Court of Telangana found in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the disciplinary actions on the grounds that the 3rd respondent was not the proper authority to initiate such proceedings.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803937 (HC-TELANGANA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
11-09-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TOUN' -_ TITION NO:26147 OF 2023 [ 3413 ] .,.PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUflIAR SHAVILI THE HoNoURABLE sRI ;usTISE?nxMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PE AND P.V.Padmaia, D/o. Late Kolallh ag_e_d 53yrs Accounts Assistant,(comoulsoritv retired ) Office of FA and g4oril-Sd, i;;,;;'\"#;):n, Secunderabad R/o t.- 216, Mallikariuna Naoar -cp,\".rv.,Ei.\"'f[ \"SffiH'No 6, parvathaouram HS%1 i &t, i#ad -5d00 ss N/; ii i D ;; ;;;,;J;k\"jtup,o g, \"i ti# I#;tsi i; l Union of rndia, Reoresented by The Generar Manager, South centrar Rairway, Rail Nitayam, 3rd f loor, secrn6er\"6ri\"-' b;0' o#\"' 2. The Additional Generat l{rl,?g\"r, South Centrat Raitway, Rail Nilayam, 3rd floor, Secunderabad - 500 025 3 The Dy CAO/S and wsc,.office of Financiar advisor and chief Accounts Officer, Traffic Accounts_Lekh; Bh;;;;; S;;n?l'raoao. 4' The Dv. cAoffisc. office of Financiar advisor and chief Accounts officer, Traffic Accounts-Lekha at\"ra;an. Sei;ni\"r1i,\"\"'o'' - 5' Sri P' srinivas. Enouirv rnsp^ector/rnquiry officer. SDGMs office, 3rd Froor, Raitnitayam,southCenrral'Raii* jv.E\"3,irlj\"r\"Jur\"i Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rirea ineiewi*r, the Hi;;'\",i,.t'i* o\" pleased to ca for the records reading to ano connected with the impugned orders passed bv the Honorabre Tribunar inbn ruo.zilo7g7r2o22 dated ,io-B.iozl ,no the charge Memorandum issued in No AAD/DAR/MAJ/PVP dated .r8..r 1.2021 , corrigendum to the charoe Memorandum ;ssueo in No AAD/DAR/MAJ/pVp dated 21 4.2022 and the rettJr AAD/DAnyHan/pvF-aiabd 21 .10.2022 issue writ of :\"gl1l or,any other.appropriate Writ or order as deemed fit quashing the gp-'s!9d orders passed by the Honorabre Tribunar in oA No.21l0tsitiii;/latea 21 .08-2023, the charge Memorandum issueoln-r.lo AADiDAR/MAJ/pVp dated Between: I , I l L, 18.11.2021 , corrioendum ^to the charge Memorandum issued in ilr.,,f.#y^J/pVp dated z q zoiiz ;; i; rJilr nnoionR/MAJ/pvp rc No dated IANO:1 oF 2023 IA NO: 20F 2023 Petition under Secti-on 1 51 . cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support- of the puiti\"ii, ir,L'riigh court may be preased to suspend the order dated 21 .08.2023 p\"ri\"O'i\"O.n .\"21tllg7t2O22 Petition under Section 1.51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support_or*re petrtiJnli#idi goy1 ,rv be preased io-.try the operation of further proc-eedings in prorr-nt' to the charge Memorandum issued in No AAD/DAR/ryfVp o\"ri\"o r!.iilioir, corrisenoum to the charge sheet issued in No AAD/DAR/MAJ/pVP Ja t\"a'it.ilZozz Counsel for the petitioner:SRl. G TRINADHA RAO Counset for the Resoo\"d:llli SRt RACHAPALLT ANURAG ASSTSTED SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARMA ADDITIoNAI soildrio-n 3.ruena,- oF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER I -a AKS.J & LNA.J W.P.No.26l47 ol202i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHA 'ILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P.No.26l47 of 2023 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumctr Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.797 12022, dated 2l-08-2023 2. Heard Sri G.Trinadha Rao, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri sri e. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents and Sri Rachapalli Anurag, learned counsel, who ably assisted the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. 3. It has been contended by the petitioner that she was working as Accounts Assistant/Traffic in the ofhce of the Finance Advisory and Chief Accounts Officer/Traffic/SC, under the administrative control of the 4th respondent-Additional Chief Accounts Officer/Traffic/SC, Secunderabad. The 3d respondent- Deputy Chief Accounts Offi cer/Traffi c/Stores and Workshop/SC, is J AKS.J & LNA.J w.l'No.26147 of 2023 the regular officer and when the 4th respondent was not available, the 3'd respondent has worked to discharge the dutles of 4th respondent on in-charge basis, vide proceedings dt'20-08-2019' However, an Officer who is working on link arrangement basis/in- charge basis cannot act as disciplinary authority nor he could discharge the statutory duties. While so, the 3'd respondent has issued a charge memo to the petitioner on l8-l l-2021, on the basis that he was discharging duties on in-charge basis in the 4th respondent office as per the Master Circular No.67, dated 23-12- 2}lg. The 3'd respondent has issued a corrigendum also to the charge memo on ?l-04-2022. The petitioner has submitted explanation to the charge memo denying the issuance of charge memo as the 3'd respondent is not the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.797/2022 ard the Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A., vide orders dt-21-08-2023 without appreciating any ofthe contentions raised by the petitioner. 4 Leamed counsel for the petitioner has contended that since in the 4th respondent's office, there is no regular Deputy Chief .1 AKS.J & LNA.J w.P.No.26 t47 of2023 ) Accounts Officer/Traffic, the 3.d respondent was posted on in-charge basis to take care of administrative and financial matters of 4s respondent office and as per Master Circular No.67, a person who is looking after the current duties ofa post cannot exercise the disciplinary functions assigned to the said post. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in the 4,h respondent's office and the 3.d respondent was looking after the current duties of the 4th respondent on link arrangement basis and as per the Master Circular No.67, dated 23_12_2019, the 3.d respondent could not be acted as a disciplinary authority and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. If there is no regular officer in the 4th respondent,s office, then the Officer above the rank of 4th respondent i.e. Finance Advisory Chief Accounts Ofhcer in the Head euarters can act as a disciplinary authority as per the Railway Employees, Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for brevity .the 196g Rules,). Rule 7 of the Rules, 1968, deals with the .Disciplinary Authorities, and as per the said Rule; (l) Tne president may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 on any Railway servaflt; (2) Withour prejudice j k K, - - ----,r*,..*a,-,.,lrEh AKS.J & LNA.J ' P.No.26l.l7 of202l to the provisions of sub-rute (1), any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 may be imposed on a Railway servant by the authorities specified in Schedules I, II and III; (3) The disciplinary authority in the case of a Railway servant officiating in a higher post, shall be time of taking action. 6. Rule 8 of the 1968 Rules deals with Authority to Institute Proceedings and as per the said Rule; ( 1) the President or any other authority empowered by him, by general or special order, may - (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Railway servant; (b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Railway servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in Rule 6; (2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specihed in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 6 may, subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 2,, institute disciplinary proceedings against any Railway servant for the imposition of, any of the penalties specified in Rule 8, Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 6, notwithstanding that such 6 determined with reference to the officiating post held by him at the 7 ^I S.J & t_N.A r W P. No.tb t.t7 ot 20:t disciplinary authority is not competent, under these rules, to impose any of the latter penalties. 7. Leamed counser for the petitioner had contended that as per the Fundamental Rule 49 issued under Government of India,s Official Memo dated 24_01_1963, the Law Ministry has advised that an officer appointed to perform the current duties ofan officer can exercise administrative or financiar powers vested in the full_fledged incumbent of the post but he cannot exercise statutory powers, whether those powers are derived directly from an Act of Parliament, e.g. Income Tax Act or Rules, Regulations and By_Laws made under various Articles of the Constitution i.e. Fundamental Rules, Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Delegation of Financial powers Rules, etc. According to the said Rule, as t}re 3.d respondent was discharging his duties on in_charge basis in the 4rh respondent,s office, he could not have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. This fact was not properly appreciated by the .Iribunal and the Tribunal has mechanically dismissed the O.A. without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. I ,i& l I 8 AKS.J & t-NA.J w P-No.261-17 of2023 8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Legal Defence Assistant of the petitioner has sought information under the Right to lnformation Act' 2005 that whether a person' who is discharging his duties on link arrangement basis, can initiate disciplinary action or not' The petitioner's Legal Defence Assistant got the information under the said Act, 2005, on 29-02-2024' wherein' it was clarified that the person, who is posted on tink arrangement basis' can discharge both financial as well as administrative functions and it was also clarified that since the Master Circular No'67 is invoked' the 3'd respondent could not have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Pettttoner. 9. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has contended that an Officer working on in-charge basis can have the powers of financial as well as administrative' However' the disciplinary powers are quasi-judiciary and those powers cannot be exercised by a person who is discharging his duties on in-charge basis or on link arrangement basis' Therefore' charge memo issued by the 3'd respondent is liable to be set aside as he is incompetent to institute fl -E-;d W.P.No.26l47 of 2021 disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ petition by setting aside the charge memo issued by the 3'd respondent and allow the Writ Petition. 10. Leamed Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents had contended that the Master Circular is only a Circular, and it cannot supersede the Rules. A perusal of Rule 8 of the 1968 Rules makes it very clear that a person who is heading the 4th respondent institute is entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings. A perusal of the said Rule also makes it clear that the functions of the disciplinary authority can be discharged by a person who is working on link arrangement basis or in-charge basis also. Rule 7 of the 1968 Rules deals with Disciplinary Authority and Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with the Authority to institute proceedings. The word .disciplinary authority' is specihed in Schedules I, II and III. A perusal of the said schedules annexed to the Rules would abundantly make it clear that a person who has been holding the independent charge or in- charge of department in a Division can also institute disciplinary l,'--*, I '',' l0 Anls,J da Lj A,J w P No 26147 of20?l proceedings. In the instant case, there is serious charge of misappropriation of railway funds to a tune of Rs.8.50 crores against the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner was prematurely retired under Rutes 1802, 1803 and 1804 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), as continuation of the petitioner would be detrimental to the interests of the Railways, and hence, the 3'd respondent, who was working on link arrangement basis, has rightly initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. I l. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents has relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Govinda Rajulur, wherein, it is held that a person who is discharging his duties on in-charge basis as a Director of Indian Council of Medical Research, is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and he has also relied on a judgment of another Division Bench in Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer (WST), SCR and Others v. C. Janardhan Rao2, wherein, it is held that the authority which is not competent to impose major penalties can still initi4te disciplinary ' w.p-No. t3520 of 2014 dt.25-0 r-2017 ' zoo: 1oy eLo +v+ II W.t'.No.26147 of 2023 proceedings and can impose minor penalty, and thereafter, the competent authority can impose major penalty. Thus, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents has contended that the 3'd respondent has power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and hence, the Tribunal has rightly not interfered with the charge memo issued by the 3d respondent. 12. The leamed Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents has further contended that a regular officer has taken charge of the 4'h respondent's office on 03-08-2022, and hence, the entire records in the disciplinary proceedings were handed over to him. Therefore, the regular officer would be continuing the disciplinary proceedings, and moreover, the petitioner has not taken any objection in this regard while giving reply to the charge memo. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A., and there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. I 3. In reply, leamed counsel for the petitioner has contended that as far as the judgment relied upon by the I w.P.No.26l47 of 2023 respondents in Govinda Rajulu's case ( t supra) is concemed, in that case, though the Director was initially appointed on in-charge basis, subsequent to her retirement, again she was re-employed as Director. In those set of circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court held that a Director of Indian Council of Medical Research was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But, in the instant case, no such regular appointment has taken place and the 3'd respondent was holding the post on link arrangement basis i.e. on in-charge basis and Master Circular No.67, dated 23-12-2019 makes it abundantly clear that an in-charge officer or an officer looking after the current duties cannot exercise the functions relating to disciplinary proceedings assigned to the said post. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon F.R. 49 and contended that a person working on in-charge basis cannot act as disciplinary authority and even as per the information fumished by the petitioner's legal defence assistant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is clear that a person discharging his duties on link arrangement basis cannot initiate disciplinary action. t-, lV.P.No.26l-17 of202l 1 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has further contended that during pendency of the charge memo, the petitioner was prematurely retired in terms of Rules 1802, 1803 and 1804 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) and the continuance of disciplinary proceedings once the petitioner was retired prematurely, cannot be sustained. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed sefting aside the order ofthe Tribunal and also set aside the charge memo dated l8-11-2021 as well as the corrigendum dated 2l-04-2022 issued by the 3'd respondent and allow the Writ Petition. 16. Having considered the rival submissions made by the leamed counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the 3'd respondent was placed as in-charge of the 4th respondent's office on link arrangement basis. A perusal of the Master Circular No.67, dated 23-12'2}lg makes it abundantly clear that a person who is looking after the current duties ofa post cannot exercise the disciplinary functions. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in not setting aside the orders of the 3'd respondent, whereby, the 3'd respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings - 1.1 AKS.J & T,NA.J $'.P No.26l{7 of202l by issuing charge memo and corrigendum on l8-l l-2021 and on t7. Even as per F.R. 49 also, the person who is working on in-charge basis, cannot act as a disciplinary authority and that an officer appointed to perlorm the current duties of a post can exercise administrative or financial powers vested in the full-fledged incumbent of the post but he cannot exercise statutory powers, whether those powers are derived directly from an Act of Parliament like the Income Tax Act or Rules, Regulations and By-Laws made under various Articles of the Constitution l.e. Fundamental Rules, Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, etc. Though the officer working on link arrangement basis can have powers of finance as well as administrative, but when it comes to disciplinary powers, he witl be discharging quasi-judicial powers, and as admittedly, no quasi-judicial functions are made available to a person working on link arrangement basis. 18. As far as the contention of the leamed Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents and the judgment cl 2 l -04-2022, respectively. 15 AKS.J & I-NA.J W.P.No 26147 of202l relied on by him in Govinda Rajulu's case (1 supra) is concerned, wherein, though the Director of Indian Council and Medical Research was initially appointed as Director in-charge, subsequently the very same Director was reemployed after retirement as regular officer. In those set of circumstances, this disciplinary proceedings. Further, as lar as the judgment relied upon by the leamed Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents in C. Janardhan Rao's case (2 supra) is concemed, a Division Bench of this Courl has held that though the authority was not competent to impose rnajor penalties has initiated disciplinary proceedings, the maj or penalty can be imposed by the authority competent to impose such penalty. In that case, the disciplinary authority was not competent to issue disciplinary proceedings for major penalties, was permitted ro initiate disciplinary proceedings initiaily for minor penalty but finally the major penalty was imposed by the authority competent to impose such major penalty. 19. In the instant case, the Master Circular No.67, dated23-12-2019 makes it clear that the person who is discharging Court had held that the Director of ICMR was comperent to initiate I t6 AKS I& I,NA I W.l'.No-26l,l7 of 2021 duties on link arrangement basis cannot initiate disciplinary action and it prohibits the 3'd respondent from acting as a disciplinary authority. Further, if the charge is serious, then the respondents ought to have withdrawn the charge sheet issued by the 3'd respondent and got it issued by the authority higher in rank than that of the 4'h respondent i.e. Chief Accounts Officer and Finance Advisor, but continuing the charge memo which was issued by the 3'd respondent who is incompetent to issue the same, cannot be permitted. The respondents could have issued the very same charge sheet through the higher authority than that ofthe 4th respondent i.e. Finance Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, however, without doing so, they made the petitioner retire prematurely and after retirement also, they intend to continue the very same charge sheet which was issued by the authority not competent under law. The respondents ought to have followed the Master Circular of the Railway Board while issuing the charge memo. 20. In the light ofthe reasons recorded above, the charge memo issued by the 3'd respondent while working on link arrangement basis in the 4th respondent's office, is liable to be set i I t7 AKS.J & I-NA.J W.P.No.26l47 ol-2021 SDi. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v SECTION OFFICER aside on the ground that he is not competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 21 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the Tribunal ln O.A.No.79712022, dated 21-08-2023 are hereby aside and consequently, the charge memo issued on I 8- 1 l-2021 and the corrigendum issued on 2l-04-2022 by the 3'd respondent are also set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 8 KKS. KKS 1. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam' 3rd floor' Secunderabad - 500 025 2.TheAdditionalGeneralManager,southCentralRailway,RailNilayam,3rd floor, Secunderabad - 500 025 3. The Dv. CAo/S and W/SC, office of Financial advisor aM chief Accounts - Offl\"i Tiaffic Accounts-Lekha Bhavan, Secunderabad' 4. The Dv. CAO/T/SC, Office of Financial advisor and chief Accounts officer, ' Traffic'Accounts-Lekha Bhavan. Secunderabad' 5. Sri P. Srinivas, Enquiry lnspector/lnquiry Officer. SDGMs Office' 3rd Floor' Railnilayam, South Central Railway. Secunderabad 6 One CC to SRl. G TRINADHA RAO Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARMA ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA IOPUC] Q* Two CD CoPies /, I HIGH COURT DATED:1 1t gt2T24 ORDER WP.No.2614T ot 2023 ALTOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Dn lrr afl >t 1 gF. sTal( (,,^ ( , c .} g J o o 2 0 N0v 2020 .A' t o€.spr1T c*€o Ifl o coY-tA ,A "
Other Referred Cases
Union of India v. Govinda Rajulur, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer (WST), SCR and Others v. C. Janardhan Rao
Laws Referred To
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 CPC, Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, Fundamental Rule 49
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026