Natural justice in departmental enquiries defeated where trap procedure and enquiry safeguards were ignored, and appellate reappraisal was unwarranted.

Non-compliance with the Railway Vigilance Manual safeguards and Rule 9(21) was treated as material in assessing a trap-based departmental enquiry, because the proceedings had to satisfy natural justice. The enquiry was found vitiated by serious procedural irregularities, including reliance on only one non-gazetted witness, inadequate opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, and an Enquiry Officer who effectively assumed a prosecutorial role. The High Court was also faulted for reappreciating evidence and drawing an unsupported adverse presumption. On that basis, the Tribunal's order was restored and the departmental proceeding set aside in favour of the employee.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the Railway Vigilance Manual safeguards and Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules vitiated the departmental proceeding, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The manual provisions governing trap cases, though administrative in character, were relevant safeguards and could not be ignored altogether when assessing whether the department had established misconduct. The departmental enquiry, being quasi-judicial, had to conform to natural justice, and the delinquent railway servant was entitled to be confronted with the circumstances appearing against him. The record showed serious irregularities in the manner of the trap and in the conduct of the enquiry, including the use of only one non-gazetted witness, the lack of proper opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, and an enquiry process in which the Enquiry Officer assumed a prosecutorial role. The High Court also erred in reappreciating evidence and in drawing an unsupported presumption against the appellant.

Conclusion: The departmental proceeding stood vitiated, the High Court's interference was unsustainable, and the Tribunal's decision was rightly restored in favour of the appellant.

---