https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303662 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. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303662 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303662