Raju Shankar Gajbhiye Vs the Secretary

¶1

1

¶2

SATISH TUMANE

¶3

Digitally signed bySATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.02.05 17:23:45 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:6223-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No.705 of 2026

¶8

Raju Shankar Gajbhiye S/o Shri Shankar Gajbhiye Aged About 60 Years Presently Working As Law Officer/SECR/ B S P R/o 1469/a, S E C R Officers Colony, Near Satpuda Rail Club, Bilaspur, C.G. 495004

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - The Secretary- Railway Board, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisena Road, Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001

¶12

2 - Union Of India Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, New G M Building Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495004

¶13

3 - Additional General Manager South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495004

¶14

4 - Principal Chief Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495004

¶15

5 - Shri K. D. Mainrai Inquiring Officer R/o A- 602, Rishi Apartment, Alakhnanda, New Delhi- 110019

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Shri A. V. Shridhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI appears along with No.1 to 4 Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate

¶18

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

¶21

04/02/2026

¶22

1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 02/12/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the

¶23

2

¶24

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur) in Original Application No.203/852 of 2021, whereby, the order dated 21/09/2021 and Corrigendum Order dated 27/09/2021 dismissing the representation dated 20/07/2021 submitted by the petitioner, has been affirmed.

¶25

1. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was working as a Law Officer in the Nagpur Division of the South East Central Railway, was trapped and caught red handed and was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation, based upon the complaint made by one Prabhu Das Patel before the Central Bureau of Investigation (In short “the CBI”) on 08/11/2010, owing to which, a criminal case was registered against him in Case No.32/2011 and, during the pendency of the said proceeding, a departmental enquiry was initiated by the respondents, while serving him with a charge memo dated 20/12/2011 and, during the course of a departmental enquiry, an application was made by the petitioner on 15/06/2012 before the Inquiry Officer demanding as many as twenty two documents, where the Inquiry Officer, after consideration of his said application, has requested the Disciplinary Authority for supplying some of the documents, as prayed for, vide order, dated 14/11/2014.

¶26

1. It appears further that the Inquiry Officer, who passed the said order dated 14/11/2014, was changed and the newly appointed Inquiry Officer has reviewed the same vide its order, dated 03/02/2020 and directed the petitioner to procure the documents directly from the CBI. After revival of the said order as such, a representation, dated 20/07/2021 was submitted by the petitioner before the said Inquiry

¶27

3

¶28

Officer while forwarding a copy of it to the Disciplinary Authority, alleging bias-ness of the newly appointed Inquiry Officer, as he reviewed not only the said order dated 14/11/2014, passed by his predecessor, but has even refused to take his written submissions on record. The representation so made, was dismissed by the respondents authorities holding, inter alia, that no bias-ness on the part of the Inquiry Officer was found, vide order dated 21/09/2021 and Corrigendum Order dated 27/09/2021, which was found to be affirmed further by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order impugned dated 02/12/2025 and, being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.

¶29

1. Shri Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while inviting attention to the Paragraph 911 of Chapter IX of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, submits that, if an Inquiry Officer is changed in the middle of an inquiry, then the newly appointed Inquiry Officer shall hear the case from the stage where it had already reached, however, in the case in hand, the newly appointed Inquiry Officer while acting contrary to it, has reviewed the said order as was passed by the earlier Inquiry Officer on 14/11/2014, which has caused prejudice to him. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar and Others versus Government (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2019) 9 SCC 416.

¶30

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 has supported the order impugned, as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶31

4

¶32

1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition.

¶33

1. From perusal of the record, it appears that during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, an application was made by the petitioner on 15/06/2012 seeking the following documents:-

¶34

From :

¶35

Sri R.S.Gajbhiye Law Officer South East Central Railway Bilaspur Dt: 15.06.2012

¶36

To Shri G.S.Takkher I.O & Retd. SDGM (Core)/ALD 452/1/1, D Lukerganj Near Ahuja Bhavan Sector 5 Allahabad-211001 (U.P)

¶37

Respected Sir,

¶38

Sub: List of documents to be supplied to the C.O Ref: Departmental Enquiry against Shri R.S. Gajbhiye, Law Officer/BSP vide Memorandum No. P/HQ/DAR/600/RSG/2010 Dated: 20.12.2011.

¶39

List of Original/ Certified copies of documents/ articles to be supplied to the C.O

¶40

S. No	Description of Documents/Article	Remarks
1.	Compact dise containing the conversation between Sri R.S.Gajbhiye, C.O and complainant Sri. Prabhu Das Karsanbhai Patel Exh.'A' MR No. 228/2010 (1)	Original
2.	……………………………..do…………….. for compairing purpose.	Copy
3.	Compact dise containing the mobile phone conversation between Sri. R.S.Gajbhiye and complainant Sri Sri. Prabhu Das Karsanbhai Patel Exh.'C' MR No. 289/2010 (2)	Original
4.	……………………………..do…………….. for compairing purpose.	Copy
5.	Micro SD Card containing conversation between the C.O and complainant Exh 'I' MR No. 290/2010 (6)	Original
6.	First information Report dt. 08.11.2010 of Case RC. 17(A)/2010-ACB/Nagpur.	Copy
7.	Handwritten complaint dt. 08.11.2010 in Hindi of Sri Prabhudas Patel, complainant addressed to SP/CBI/ ACB/Nagpur.	Copy
8.	One handwritten letter dt. 02.03.2011 of Sri Sri Prabhudas Patel, complainant addressed to Sri Vinod Kumar, PI/ CBI/ ACB/Nagpur submitting documents of the case.	Copy
9.	Notarised photocopy of the power of attorney dt. 10.08.2010 swom by Sri Karshanbhai Patel in favour of his son Sri Prabhudas Patel, complainant empowering him in respect of related matters of Plot No. 21-B Itwari, Lakadganj, Nagpur.	Copy

¶41

5

¶42

10.	Copy of the outstanding position of licence fees for the period from 1996-97 to 2010-11 towards Plot No. 21-B, Itwari in respect of Karshanbhai Patel showing a total fee of Rs. 19,31,185/-	Copy
11.	Photocopy of the agreement dt. 17.02.1995 of Plot No. 21-B, Itwari executed between Sri Karshanbhai Patel executed and SECR Railway and related papers.	Copy
12.	Receipt/ Production memo dt. 05.01.2011 prepared by Shri MS Dleate, PI/CBI/ ACB/Nagpur regarding receipt of attested copies of the service records of Shri Raju Shankar Gajbhiye, accused from Shri Debabrate Paul, Asstt Commercial Manager, SEC Railway, Nagpur.	Copy
13.	Attested copy of the Page No. 69 to 72 of the Service Book of Shri Raju Shankar Gajbhiye accused regarding his posting as Law Officer, SEC Railway, Nagpur	Copy
14.	Search list dt. 10.11.2010 prepared by Sri Vinod Kumar, PI/ CBI/ACB/Nagpur regarding his posting as Law Officer, SEC Railway Nagpur.	Copy
15.	File no. Reg. Civil Suit no. 315/2009/AJ/SSC/ Nagpur regarding Karsanbhai Patel V/s Sr. DCM, SECR/ NGP containing the relevant nothing in respect of eviction proceeding of Plot No. 21-B, Itwari, Nagpur by Sri Raju Shankar Gajbhiye, Law Officer, SECR Railways, Nagpur.	Copy437
16.	File No. G30/LL/ITR/ SA/ New in respect of Plot No. 21-B Itwari, Nagpur containing the copies of relevant Correspondence issued by SEC Railways to Sri Prabhudas Patel, complainant.	Copy
17.	Letter No. G30/LL/ITR/SA/ New dt. 21.02.2011 of Sr. DCM, SECR Railways, Nagpur addressed to Inspr./ CBI/ ACb/ Nagpur forwarding the copies of relevant documents.	Copy
18.	Attested copy of the Circular No. SECR/ BSP/ LL/ Policy dt. 05.05.2004 Circular No. L/ Policy/ Genl/ Pt./ VII dt. 03.11.1995, Circular No. 03/ WZ/ LM/18/87 Dt. 29.08.1995 of Ministry of Railways regarding calculation of licence fees in respect of commercial plots leased by the railways.	Copy
19.	Copy of the outstanding position pf licence fees for the period from 1995-96 to 2010-11 towards Plot No. 21-B, Itwari in respect of Karshanbhai Patel showing a total fee of Rs. 19,41,596	Copy
20.	Copy of the statement recorded U/s. 164 Cr.P.C. of Sri Sri Prabhudas Patel, complainant by JMFC, Court Room No. 3, Nagpur.	Copy
21.	Copy of the statement recorded U/s. 164 Cr.P.C of Sri Kishore Musale, witness by JMFC, Court Room No. 3 Nagpur.	Copy
22.	CFSL Report No. CFSL-P-09/2011 dt. Of Spectrography test.	Copy

¶43

It is pertinent to mention that some more documents in defence may be required if needed. The additional list of which will be submitted on being done with the above documents and if warranted please.

¶44

Thanking you Sir,

¶45

Sd/(R.S.Gajbhiye) Law Officer

¶46

6

¶47

South East Central Railway Bilaspur

¶48

Copy to: Shri Bhola Nath Dey, Vigilance Inspector (T) SECR/Bilaspur & P.O in the subject case, for kind information please.

¶49

South East Central Railway

¶50

The aforesaid application was considered by the earlier Inquiry Officer and, vide its order dated 14/11/2014 requested the Disciplinary Authority to supply the relevant documents, as mentioned therein, in three copies, each for the Inquiry Officer, Presenting Officer and the petitioner herein, but the relevant documents were, however, not supplied by the Disciplinary Authority as it was awaited from CBI and, in the meantime, the earlier Inquiry Officer was changed and, the newly appointed Inquiry Officer has reviewed the said order, dated 14/11/2014, passed by the earlier Inquiry Officer, while directing the petitioner to procure the same directly from the CBI. The act of the newly appointed Inquiry Officer, thus, appears to have been made contrary to the Paragraph 911 of Chapter IX of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, which is relevant for the purpose reads as under :-

¶51

CHAPTER IX

¶52

THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE / INQUIRY OFFICER IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

¶53

……….xxxx……

¶54

911. Change of Inquiry Officer

¶55

If an IO is changed in the middle of an inquiry, the new IO shall hear the case from the stage which it had already reached.

¶56

……….xxxx……

¶57

1. A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would, thus, restricts the newly appointed Inquiry Officer to undone the proceedings made by his

¶58

7

¶59

predecessor-in- interest and has to proceed from the stage where it had already reached. The newly appointed Inquiry Officer was, thus, not competent enough to undone or review the order, dated 14/11/2014 passed by the earlier Inquiry Officer, whereby, the Disciplinary Authority was requested to supply the relevant documents as mentioned therein.

¶60

1. The said observation is fortified by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 , wherein it has been held at paragraphs 12 to 14 as under:-

¶61

“….12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, reported in AIR 1966 SC 641.)

¶62

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 844, Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, reported in (1979) 1 SCC 321, Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 525, State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records & Settlement, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 162 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 705, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.

¶63

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/ correction is not permissible."

¶64

8

¶65

1. While reiterating the aforesaid principles, it has been held further by the Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar (supra) at para

¶66

13 as under :-

¶67

“13. It is settled law that the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the statute concerned, such power of review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. ……….”

¶68

1. Considering the above-mentioned paragraph 911 of Chapter IX of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, vis-a-vis, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, the act of the newly appointed Inquiry Officer cannot be held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Although, his act is not appreciable, but the same cannot be held to be biased, merely because of escaping ones to follow the same, as alleged by the petitioner in his said representation, dated 20/07/2021.

¶69

1. In view of the aforesaid background, we are, therefore, inclined to dispose of this petition, while directing the respondent authorities to supply the documents to the petitioner, as ordered by the earlier Inquiry Officer vide order dated 14/11/2014, with a further direction to the petitioner to co-operate with the proceeding of the departmental enquiry, as the same is pending since 2011.

¶70

1. The petition, thus, stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶71

No order as to cost(s)

¶72

SD/- SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶73

Tumane

Raju Shankar Gajbhiye v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

Raju Shankar Gajbhiye v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamini Vs Jagat

Tarachand Parakh Vs Nemichand Parakh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Yadav And Ors.

Nayan Dutta Vs Dr. K.K. Agrawal

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Sughan Singh Nawarji And Ors.

Govind Prasad Vs Satyaprakash Gupta (Died) Through his legal heirs-