Allowed¶13

UOI & Ors. v. Rajesh Bhutani

Judicial review of departmental inquiry – scope

Delhi HC3 Dec 2025W.P.(C)/7108/2007

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Departmental inquiry; standard of proof; preponderance of probabilities; strict rules of evidence inapplicable; judicial review; CAT/Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence or act as appellate authority; Mobile Booking Clerk; New Delhi Railway Station; Green Pay Orders (GPOs) fraudulent refund; connivance with Refund Office staff; loss of Rs. 34,611; removal from service; Divisional Traffic Manager; Appellate Authority dismissal dated 09.04.2005; Rule 3.1(i)-(iii) Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966; IRCM Vol-II paras 2168 & 2169; O.A. No. 976 of 2005; ex parte; writ petition allowed; Tribunal order dated 08.06.2007 set aside.

What did the court decide?

The Impugned Order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 976 of 2005 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. ¶13

UOI & Ors. Vs Rajesh Bhutani — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Impugned Order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 976 of 2005 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal, in exercise of powers of judicial review, erred in acting as an appellate authority and reappreciating the entire evidence led before the Inquiry Officer so as to set aside the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the penalty of removal from service, and to direct readmission of the respondent to duty. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

While exercising powers of judicial review, the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate forum to reappreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions thereon.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

In departmental inquiries, allegations against an officer are not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but only on the test of preponderance of probabilities; the strict rules of evidence do not apply to such proceedings.

¶10

Key takeaways

The allegations against the respondent stood proved by the petitioners by examining three witnesses, whose depositions established acts and omissions of the respondent resulting in a loss of Rs. 34,611/- to the department.ratio¶11
The learned Tribunal erred in setting aside the inquiry proceedings and directing that the respondent be readmitted to duty.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Judicial review of departmental inquiry – scope – Central Administrative Tribunal cannot act as an appellate forum. The High Court of Delhi allowed the Union's writ petition and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 08.06.2007 in O.A. No. 976/2005, whereby the penalty of 'removal from service' imposed on the respondent, a Mobile Booking Clerk at New Delhi Railway Station, had been quashed and readmission to duty ordered. Held: (i) in departmental inquiries, allegations are not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but only on the test of preponderance of probabilities, and the strict rules of evidence do not apply; (ii) while exercising powers of judicial review, the Tribunal cannot reappreciate the entire evidence led before the Inquiry Officer and arrive at its own conclusions. The Inquiry Officer had validly proved six charges of misconduct — including fraudulent refund of Green Pay Orders in connivance with Claims/Refund Office staff causing a loss of Rs. 34,611/- to the railways — based on the testimony of three departmental witnesses; the Tribunal's interference amounted to sitting in appeal. Respondent was proceeded ex parte despite service by publication.

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 03.12.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 7108/2007 UOI & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mukul Singh (CGSC), Ms.Ira Singh, Mr. Aryan Dhaka Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJESH BHUTANI .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶8

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 976 of 2005, titled Rajesh Bhutani v. Union Of India & Ors. , allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:

¶10

“14. We set aside the Annexure A-1 dated 25.12.2004 as well as the appellate order. At this distance of time, it may not serve any purpose by remitting the matter for a de novo inquiry. Taking notice of the totality of the circumstances, we direct that the applicant is to be readmitted to duty, but, of course, he has to suffer inconvenience, for the manner, in which he had conducted himself, while employed as a railway servant. The applicant is to be reengaged, in the post in which he was employed at the time of issue of Annexure A-1 effective from 01.8.2007 but the intervening period while he was out of service is not counted for any purposes

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 7108/2007 NEGI Signing Da te:0 6.12.2025 16:44:56

¶14

whatsoever. Past service rendered will, however, be tagged on to the service yet to be rendered and he will be entitled to benefit only to this limited extent. We hope that he will hereafter sure in his new term as a responsible employee, without giving room to any complaint.”

¶15

The respondent, in spite of service by way of publication, has not appeared and has therefore been proceeded ex parte.

¶16

The respondent, who was serving as a Mobile Booking Clerk (MBC) at New Delhi Railway Station, was issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 24.04.2001 which reads as under:

¶17

“Shri Rajesh Bhutani, MBC/NDLS was found responsible for the undernoted serious irregularities/misconductDuring a preventive check conducted by the Vigilance it was noticed that a number of Green Pay Orders as mentioned At S. Nos.-1 to 22,24 to 27,29 to 33,36 to 51 & S.No.-54 in detail list were received back as undelivered in Claims Office/Refund Office. The said Pay Orders were not entered in the Register properly in the Refund Office. In Claims Office a stamp in token of receipt of these Pay Orders alongwith the date of receipt was affixed but, these Pay Orders were handed over to a unauthorised Khalasi for onward submission in Refund office. The staff of Claims/Refund Office connived with Shri. Rajesh Bhutani, MBC/NDLS and got these Pay Order's encashed pradulently by errasing the stamp and altering the station to which these were addressed causing a loss to Railway Revenue amounting to Rs.34.611/-, The Pay Orders refunded were not witnessed by any body and the same cases there were not having even the signatures of the Payee, Shri, Rajesh Bhutani failed to get the Payee's signature/Witness. Shri, Bhutani also failed to make entries of the pay Orders refunded in his duty in the Pay Order Register. maintained for the purpose to record the complete detail of Pay Orders on which the refund granted, and to obtain the signatures of the Payee in the Register.

¶18

As required to embosed the Pay Orders as Paid on (Date), Station and CBS's signatures at the time of granting regund was not done by him. As per IRCM Vol-II para, 2168 & 2169 Pay

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 7108/2007 NEGI Signing Da te:0 6.12.2025 16:44:56

¶22

Orders will be sent to the Payee and the station on which it is drawn will be advise seperately and while granting the refund the particulars on the Pay Orders should be compared with the intimation received directly from Refund office. If no such intimation has been received from Refund Office Shri, Bhutani has granted the refund of Pay Orders even without receipt of intimation without comparing and without verification of genuin-ness,

¶23

He has failed to make entries of Pay Orders with the Carbon process and to submit one copy to Cashier alongwith the pay Orders as Cash Vouchers at the close of his shift and to make the entries of Pay Orders in the DTC Pook.

¶24

By the above act of omision and commission, Shri, Rajesh Bhutani MBC/N Rly., New Delhi failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibi-ted lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant and thereby contravened the provision of Rule No 3.1 (i) , (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules,-1966.”

¶25

In the inquiry proceedings, the petitioners/department examined three witnesses. The respondent did not examine any witness and instead stated that he would rely upon the written statement of defence before the general examination. The Inquiry Officer considered the evidence in detail, including the defence version, and found the charges to be proved against the respondent.

¶26

The Inquiry Officer bifurcated the charges levelled against the respondent into six distinct charges as under:

¶27

“5. Discussion of evidence on charge:-

¶28

The charges leveled against the CO are in descriptive form. However for better appraisal the description is summarized into six charges as under-

¶29

1. CO, in connivance with staff of refund office fraudulently granted refund of GPOs inspite visible erasing and cutting on GPOs

¶30

2. Failed to get signature of witnesses and even in some cases the signatures of party.

¶31

3. Failed to record the details of GPOs refunded

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 7108/2007 NEGI Signing Da te:0 6.12.2025 16:44:56

¶35

by him in GPO register including signature of party

¶36

4.Failed to endorse that GPO paid on (date), stn. and CBS signature at time of granting refund.

¶37

5.Granted refund without receipt of advise, without comparing and without verification of genuineness.

¶38

6. Failed to make entries of GPOs with carbon process and to submit one copy to cashier alongwith GPOs at close of shift and to make entries of GPOs in DTC Book.”

¶39

Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Inquiry Officer concluded that all six charges stood proved against the respondent.

¶40

Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a representation on receipt of notice from the Disciplinary Authority. The same was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Divisional Traffic Manager, who imposed upon the respondent the penalty of ‘removal from service’. The appeal filed thereagainst by the respondent was also dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority/Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager.

¶41

The respondent challenged the aforesaid orders by filing the above O.A., which, as noted hereinabove, has been allowed by the learned Tribunal.

¶42

While the learned Tribunal found that there was a grave suspicion of the respondent having acted not only in dereliction of his duties but also as a link in a chain attempting to exploit the ongoing system, the learned Tribunal, however, in our opinion, acted as an appellate authority and reappreciated the entire evidence led by the department before the Inquiry Officer to discover lacunae therein, and therefore set aside the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Page 4 of 5

¶45

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 7108/2007 NEGI Signing Da te:0 6.12.2025 16:44:56

¶46

The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in departmental inquiries, allegations against an officer are not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but only on the test of preponderance of probabilities. The strict rules of evidence do not apply to such proceedings. In any event, while exercising powers of judicial review, the learned Tribunal cannot act as an appellate forum to reappreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions thereon.

¶47

As noted hereinabove, the allegations against the respondent stood proved by the petitioners by examining three witnesses, who deposed regarding the various acts and omissions of the respondent which resulted in a loss of Rs. 34,611/- to the department.

¶48

In view of the above, we find that the learned Tribunal erred in setting aside the inquiry proceedings and directing that the respondent be readmitted to duty.

¶49

The Impugned Order is accordingly set aside. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶50

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶51

MADHU JAIN, J

¶52

DECEMBER 03, 2025/prg/RM/ik

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Page 5 of 5

¶55

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 7108/2007 NEGI Signing Da te:0 6.12.2025 16:44:56

UOI & Ors. v. Rajesh Bhutani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

UOI & Ors. v. Rajesh Bhutani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sher Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shree Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati Ptc College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

State Bank of India Vs M/S G I Enterprises through Its Proprietor Ms Pooja Anand & Ors.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through Its Commissioner Vs Sh. Tarkeshwar Tiwari

Commissioner of Delhi Police and Ors. Vs Akshika and Ors.

Bala Rani Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Nikhil Yadav Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Anand and Company Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Sher Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through Its Commissioner Vs Sh. Tarkeshwar Tiwari

Union of India & Anr. Vs Vikram Bhasin

Union of India and Ors. & Ors. Vs Ajay Goel

Kumkum Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sant Ram Vs Union of India and Others