Disciplinary proceedings under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 – Observance of procedure: Railway Board Order RBE No. 31/2026 dated 06.04.2026
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (भारत सरकार)
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (रेल मंत्रालय)
RAILWAY BOARD (रेलवे बोर्ड)
RBE No. 31/2026
No. E(D&A) 2025 RG6-4
New Delhi, Dated: 06.04.2026
The General Manager (P)
All Indian Railways & Production Units etc.
(As per Standard list).
Sub: Disciplinary proceedings under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 – Observance of procedure reg.
A case has come to the notice of Ministry of Railways where immediately after the closure of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and submission of statement of defence by the charged official, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and submitted his report in the case. The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in the said case have commented adversely on the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer observing that the inquiry authority has held the inquiry only on behalf of the prosecution. In an another case, Hon’ble Tribunal has quashed the penalty order on the ground of noncompliance of mandatory requirement of serving a copy of the inquiry report to the charged official by the disciplinary authority before passing final orders in the case in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The matter has been considered. Railways are advised as under:
(i) Opportunity of defence to the charged official
As the Railways are aware, inquiry is conducted in the disciplinary cases against Railway Servants in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Under the extant rules, after the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority has been closed, the charged official is given an opportunity to put forward his defence. The procedure to be followed at the defence stage is brought out in sub-rules (19) to (22) of rule 9 aforesaid. The statement of defence is given by the charged official under sub rule 19 mentioned above. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has to give an opportunity to the charged official to lead his evidence, generally examine him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence followed by defence brief, if any, from the charged official before the inquiry report is prepared. In the instant case, however, the Inquiry Officer completely bypassed the procedure further to sub-rule 19 of rule 9 leading to denial of reasonable opportunity of defence to the charged official. Hon’ble Tribunal have observed that the Disciplinary and Appellate authority in the case also overlooked the serious procedural lapses in the conduct of the inquiry made by the Inquiry Officer.
(ii) Master Circular No. 67 issued by Ministry of Railways
Ministry of Railways have issued an Master Circular bearing No. 67 bringing out in detail the important points to be kept in view by the various authorities handling the disciplinary cases including the Inquiry Officer. Instructions have also been issued under Board’s letter no. E(D&A)2008 RG6-29 dated 04.08.2009 requiring the Railways to make available a copy of the above said Master Circular to the Inquiry Officer along with the appointment order. Vide the above letter dated 04.08.2009, Railways have also been directed that all the disciplinary cases may be routed through the personnel department at all important stages of inquiry in order that the required procedures are complied with. It appears that the above guidelines have not been followed in the instant case causing this unwholesome situation.
(iii) Action on inquiry report
There is also a clear provision in rule 10 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 that a copy of inquiry report will be supplied to the charged official to enable him to submit his representation thereon, if any, before the final order are passed in the case by the Disciplinary Authority. The said rules also require that where the Inquiry Officer hold a charge or charges as not proved or partly proved and the Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the reasons of disagreement of the disciplinary authority with the findings of the inquiry officer will also be furnished to the charged official along with the inquiry report so that he can make an effective representation. The above procedure is very well established and widely known. Non observance of the above procedure, therefore, cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. Likewise, rule 22 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 cast a clear responsibility on the Appellate Authority to see whether the procedure laid down under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 have been complied with or not in the case and pass appropriate orders accordingly.
(iv) Necessity of reasoned and speaking orders
The importance of passing reasoned and speaking orders by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisionary Authorities can hardly be over emphasized. Reasoned and speaking orders not only enable proper discussion on the merits of the case but ensures that the procedural aspects of the disciplinary proceedings are also duly addressed.
3. It has also been observed that in some cases, the Inquiry Officers have not followed properly the laid down procedure for general examination of the charged official under sub-rule 21 of rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The charged official was merely asked whether he is satisfied with the inquiry and want to say something in his defence. This is not a correct procedure. Rule 9(21) aforesaid envisages that the Inquiry Officer will summarize all the material facts and evidence that appear in the inquiry that go against the charged official and thereafter, ask him to explain his position on these incriminating facts and evidence. The above may please be ensured.
4. Railways may please appreciate that Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and therefore, the prescribed procedures are required to be followed in letter as well as spirit. Any failure in following the prescribed procedure not only causes avoidable hardships to the innocent officials but also afford an opportunity to erring officials to escape the penal action on the plea of denial of reasonable opportunity of defence. It becomes difficult to defend such cases when challenged in a Court of Law. Railways may therefore, ensure that the extant rules and administrative instructions issued there under are followed scrupulously in all disciplinary cases to ensure the principles of natural justice are followed.
5. Please acknowledge receipt.
(Priya Gopalakrishnan)
Director/Estt.(D&A)
Railway Board
COMMENTS