2007 (8) TMI 721 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether on the facts and the material available on record, non-adherence of the instructions as laid down in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual would invalidate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents and rendering the consequential orders of penalty imposed upon the respondents by the authorities, as held by the High Court in the impugned order?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of departmental traps conducted by the Railway Vigilance Officer.
2. Adherence to procedural guidelines in the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996.
3. Validity of penalties imposed based on the investigations.
4. The nature of instructions in the Vigilance Manual (mandatory vs. procedural).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Departmental Traps Conducted by the Railway Vigilance Officer:
The appeals were filed against the High Court's decision which upheld the Tribunal's order quashing the penalties imposed on the respondents due to defective departmental traps. The traps were conducted by the Vigilance Officer using decoy passengers, and the respondents were found to have demanded and collected excess money. The Tribunal and the High Court found that the traps were conducted in violation of paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996, which led to the quashing of the penalties.

2. Adherence to Procedural Guidelines in the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996:
The Tribunal and the High Court held that the traps were conducted without adhering to the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual. These provisions require the presence of independent witnesses and proper documentation of the transaction. The High Court concluded that the absence of independent witnesses and the involvement of RPF Constables as decoy passengers rendered the investigation defective and prejudiced the respondents' defense.

3. Validity of Penalties Imposed Based on the Investigations:
The penalties imposed on the respondents, including removal from service and compulsory retirement, were based on the findings of the departmental inquiries conducted under the Railway Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The High Court and the Tribunal found these penalties invalid due to the defective investigation process. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning, stating that the procedural guidelines in the Vigilance Manual are not of a substantive nature and their violation does not automatically invalidate the departmental proceedings.

4. The Nature of Instructions in the Vigilance Manual (Mandatory vs. Procedural):
The Supreme Court clarified that the instructions in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual are procedural and not substantive. These instructions are meant for the guidance of investigating officers and do not confer any legally enforceable rights on the respondents. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with these procedural guidelines does not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings. The Court cited precedents to support the view that administrative instructions without statutory force do not create enforceable rights and their breach does not warrant judicial intervention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the instructions in the Vigilance Manual are procedural and their violation does not invalidate the departmental proceedings. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties imposed on the respondents were upheld. The Court also dismissed the intervention application by the All India Com. Railway Employees Sangharsh Samiti, noting that related disputes were pending before the Tribunal and the High Court.

Final Orders:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby reinstating the penalties imposed on the respondents. The Writ Petition Nos. 1489/02, 26165/2001, and 25111/01 filed before the High Court were allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs. The intervention application was rejected without expressing any opinion on its merits.