Broad inquiry authority under disciplinary rules includes retired officers; punishment stands absent actual prejudice from withheld vigilance notes.

A disciplinary rule permitting inquiry by the authority itself, a Board of Inquiry, or "other authority" was held to be broad enough to include a retired railway officer, because the phrase was not restricted to serving employees and no express or implied exclusion applied. The Court also held that ejusdem generis did not confine the expression to in-service personnel, so the inquiry appointment was valid. On the vigilance issue, non-furnishing of CVC advice or notes did not vitiate the punishment because no statutory rule made supply mandatory and no actual prejudice was shown. The disciplinary proceedings were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a retired railway officer could be appointed as an inquiry officer as "other authority" under Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. (ii) Whether non-furnishing of the Central Vigilance Commission advice or notes vitiated the disciplinary punishment.

Issue (i): Whether a retired railway officer could be appointed as an inquiry officer as "other authority" under Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Analysis: Rule 9(2) empowered the disciplinary authority to inquire into the charges itself or appoint a Board of Inquiry or other authority. The expression "other authority" was not defined or restricted to serving employees. Reading the rule in its context, the Court held that no express or implied exclusion barred appointment of a retired officer, and the departmental circulars permitting such appointments were only supplementary to the rule and not inconsistent with it. The Court also held that the rule did not warrant application of ejusdem generis to confine "other authority" to persons in service.

Conclusion: The appointment of a retired railway officer as inquiry officer was valid and the challenge to the inquiry on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether non-furnishing of the Central Vigilance Commission advice or notes vitiated the disciplinary punishment.

Analysis: The Court held that supply of CVC advice was not shown to be mandatory under any statutory rule. The record did not establish that any CVC note was actually relied upon by the disciplinary authority or that its non-supply caused prejudice. Applying the settled principle that breach of natural justice or procedural irregularity does not automatically vitiate punishment unless de facto prejudice is shown, the Court found the Tribunal's finding unsustainable.

Conclusion: The punishment was not vitiated by non-furnishing of the CVC advice or notes.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings were held to be valid, and the orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a disciplinary rule confers power on the authority to appoint "other authority" for inquiry, that expression is of wide import and is not confined to serving employees unless the rule expressly or by necessary implication so provides; further, disciplinary punishment is not liable to be set aside for non-supply of vigilance material unless actual prejudice is shown.

---