The Allahabad High Court observed that once a charge is admitted, there is no necessity to conduct any further inquiry with regard to the admitted charges.

The petitioner, who was working as a Khalasi/Helper in Railways, was found guilty of the charges of unauthorised absence from work and was subsequently removed from service after enquiry proceedings.

The petitioner was found to have absented himself by a Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Rameshtotal number of 801 days unauthorisedly. The petitioner raised Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (Rules) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against his dismissal. He argued that no letter regarding the appointment of an inquiry officer was delivered to the petitioner.

However, the CAT held that that was illegality or irregularity in the enquiry proceedings and upheld the dismissal.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “Bare perusal of the charge memo and the statement recorded by the inquiry officer clearly discloses that the petitioner has admitted the charge, and once, he has admitted the charge as per the standard format of charge-sheet, there is no requirement of further inquiry, but in the instant case, the fact remains that the respondents have issued charge memo to the petitioner, despite receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has failed to submit any explanation within stipulated time.

Advocate Vinod Kumar represented the petitioner, while Advocate Rajnish Kumar Rai appeared for the respondents.

Rule 9 (17) of the Rules provides for the examination of witnesses and cross-examination by the delinquent employee. The petitioner argued that in his case, no witnesses were examined by the inquiry officer and he had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that “it vitiates the procedure contemplated in the above said Rules.

The petitioner argued that the Railways did not supply any documents for initiation of the charges against the petitioner, which were mandatory as per the Rules. The Railways also failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the Rules.

The Court took note of the fact that when the charge was framed against the petitioner for continuous unauthorised absence, the petitioner admitted the charge in his statement. Hence, the Court held that “once the charge is admitted, there is no necessity to conduct any further inquiry with regard to the admitted charges.

The Court remarked that the petitioner had been absent from work for a total of 691 days from 2005-2008 and held that “the petitioner is habitual absentee from the duties. Moreover, in the impugned order clearly indicates that the inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner on 8.7.2009 and no reply/explanation has been submitted by the petitioner. Hence, contentions of the petitioner is not supported by any material, which is vague and baseless.

Accordingly, the High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the orders of the CAT and dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Mohammad Sabir v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:26802-DB)


Petitioner: Advocate Vinod Kumar

Respondents: Advocate Rajnish Kumar Rai and Gopal Verma

Click here to read/download the Order