http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5033 of 2003

PETITIONER:

The Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ors

RESPONDENT:

G. Ratnam & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2007

BENCH:

H.K. Sema & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5033 OF 2003

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5029 OF 2003

The Divisional Commercial Manager, South

Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ors. ..... Appellants

Versus

M. Subramanyam Devers ..... Respondent

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5031 OF 2003

Union of India & Ors. ..... Appellants

Versus

M. Anjaneyulu ..... Respondent

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. These appeals by special leave filed by the Chief

Commercial Manager, South Central Railway and Others \026

appellants herein, are directed against the common judgment

and order dated 4th day of September, 2002 passed by a

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 1489/2002, 26165

and 25111/2001. By the impugned order, the High Court

dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants against the

order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short "the

Tribunal"], Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. The Tribunal

allowed the original applications of the respondents herein and

quashed the orders of penalties imposed upon the respondents

by the authority in departmental proceedings and further

directed to reinstate the respondents in service.

2. These appeals are similar in nature and they involve

identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are

being decided by this common judgment.

3. The facts, which are not in controversy of the case, are

set out below:-

C. A. No. 5031 of 2002:

4. M. Anjaneyulu, the respondent in C.A. No. 5031/2003, at

the relevant time, was working as Head Train Ticket Examiner

(HTTE) on Train No. 8561. On 26.11.1998, departmental trap

was laid by the Vigilance Officer of the Railway by arranging a

decoy passenger on Train No.8561 going from Vijayawada to

Kazipet stations. In the process of the raid, the respondent

was found having demanded more money against the EFT

amount. The report of the investigating officer was submitted

to the Railway Authority, who issued charge sheet against the

delinquent. The articles of charges are as under:-

(i) That the said Shri M. Anjaneyulu has demanded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9

and collected Rs. 200/- against the EFT amount of Rs.

128/- towards the conversion and reservation charges for

providing SL class accommodation on two II Express

Ticket Nos. 29059 and 39060. Thus, he failed to

maintained absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted

in a manner of unbecoming of a Railway servant and

violated Rule No. 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of Rule No. 26 of Railway

Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

(ii) While working as such in Train No. 8561 Express of

26.11.1988, he produced his railway cash as Rs. 803/-

against his EFT earning of Rs. 767/- and thus he

produced Rs. 36/- excess as an unaccounted cash.

Thus, he violated Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Rule No. 26 of

Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

5. The Enquiry Officer conducted departmental Inquiry

against the respondent-delinquent on the above said charges

as per the provisions of the Railway Services (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules, 1968 and held that both the charges were

proved against the delinquent. He was found defaulting

himself in discharge of the official duties. The Disciplinary

Authority, having agreed with the Inquiry Report, imposed

upon the respondent-delinquent penalty of reversion by two

grades from HTTE to Ticket Examiner (TE). The Revisional

Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

respondent-delinquent vide order dated 25.02.2000, enhanced

the penalty to removal from service of the respondent. Being

aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief

Commercial Manager, South Central Railway. The Appellate

Authority, on consideration of the material on record,

confirmed the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent

by the Revisional Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent

filed O.A. No. 1339/2000 before the Tribunal below.

C. A. No. 5029 of 2007:

6. M. Subramanyam Devers, respondent herein, was

working as Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) in the year 1999.

On 07.06.1999, when the respondent-delinquent was on duty

on Train No. 752, Summer Special Express going from

Secunderabad to Wadi, the Vigilance Officer laid departmental

trap by deploying a decoy passenger. In the process of raid,

the respondent was found defaulting himself in discharge of

his official duties. As a result thereof, a charge sheet dated

24.8.1999 was issued against the respondent, which reads as

under:-

(i) That the said Sri M. Subramanyam Devers has

demanded and collected Rs. 100/- against the EFT

amount of Rs. 89/- and again collected Rs. 100/- against

the EFT amount of Rs. 89/- towards the conversion and

reservation charges for providing SL class

accommodation on two II Express Ticket Nos. 34623 and

34622. Thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity,

devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of

a Railway servant and violated Rule No. 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of

Rule No. 26 of Railway Services [Conduct] Rules, 1966.

(ii) While working as such in Train No. 752, Summer

Special on 7.6.1999 ex. SC to WD has produced his

railway cash as Rs. 200/- against the EFT accountal of

Rs. 178/- and got remitted to the Railway vide EFT No.

492236 of 7.6.99 is liable as per para 2429 of IRCM Vol.

II. Thus, Sri Subramanyam Devers, TTE/SC failed to

maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner

unbecoming of a Railway servant and thus, violated Rule

No. 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,

1966.

7. In a departmental inquiry conducted under the Railway

Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, the Inquiry

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9

officer found the above-said charges proved against the

respondent. The Disciplinary Authority had accepted the

Inquiry Report and imposed punishment of removal from

service upon the respondent with immediate effect. The

Appellate Authority, on consideration of the appeal filed by the

respondent vide order dated 24.02.2000, confirmed the order

of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The

respondent preferred a revision before the Revisional

Authority, who on 14.08.2000 dismissed the said revision

petition. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No.

1349/2000 before the Tribunal.

C. A. No. 5033 of 2003:

8. In the year 1998, G. Ratnam, respondent herein, was

working as HTTE. In a decoy departmental trap laid by the

Vigilance Officer on 13/14.01.1998, the respondent was found

lacking in discharge of his official duties. A charge memo

dated 27.6.1998 containing the following two heads of charges

was issued to the respondent.

(i) That the said Sri. G. Ratnam, HTTE/SL/BZA while

working as such by 7225 Express from BZA\026GTL on

13/14.01.1998 has failed to maintain absolute integrity,

devotion to duty and has committed the following

irregularity in that. He has collected Rs.20/- excess from

Sri N. Neelambaram for providing sleeper class reserved

accommodation ex. BZA to BAY as detailed in the

statement of imputations and thus collected

unauthorized charges hence liable vide para 2430(a) of

IRCM Volume \026II.

(ii) Thus Sri G. Ratnam, HTTE/SL/BZA has violated

Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,

1966. While working as such by 7225 Express from

BZA-GTL on 13/14.01.1998 has failed to maintain

absolute integrity, show devotion to duty and has

committed the serious irregularity; in that he has

produced Rs. 20/- excess in the Railway cash which was

remitted to Railways vide EFT No. 305379 of 13.1.1998

and thus liable vide para 2429(e) of IRCM Volume II.

Thus Sri G. Ratnam, HTTE/SL/BZA has violated Rule

3(1)(i) & (ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

9. The Railway Authority conducted departmental inquiry

against the respondent in accordance with the provisions of

the Railway Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and

during the said inquiry, the above-said charges were proved

against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, having

gone through the inquiry report vide order dated 26.05.1999,

imposed a penalty of reduction to lower grade post of TTE

upon the respondent with effect from 10.6.1999 for a period of

one year with loss of seniority. It appears that no appeal has

been preferred by the respondent against the order of the

Disciplinary Authority. However, the Senior Divisional

Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division

\026 appellant No. 3 herein under Rule 25 of the Railway Service

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 took suo motu revision

and directed the respondent to show-cause why the penalty be

not enhanced to removal from service. The respondent

submitted his representation on 29.11.2001. On 05.01.2000,

appellant No. 3 considered the representation of the

respondent, modified and substituted the penalty to that of

compulsory retirement of the respondent from service with

effect from 20.01.2000. Being aggrieved, the respondent

preferred O.A. No. 194/2000 before the Tribunal which came

to be disposed of on 14.2.2000 with a direction to the

respondent to prefer an appeal before the Chief Commercial

Manager - Appellate Authority. The respondent accordingly

filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9

of compulsory retirement imposed by the Revising Authority

upon the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed

another O.A. No. 1773/2000 before the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal below, by a common order, allowed the

applications of the respondents on a technical ground holding

that the departmental traps were not laid by the Vigilance

Officers of the Railways in accordance with the provisions of

the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996 and as a result of

the defective investigations, orders of imposition of penalty

upon the respondents by the Disciplinary Authority and the

consequential orders of the Revisional Authority as well as the

Appellate Authority are quashed.

11. The appellants, being aggrieved, filed three separate writ

petitions in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad challenging the validity and correctness of the

order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court

agreed with the order of the Tribunal and came to the

conclusion that the investigating agency had conducted the

departmental traps against the respondents in violation of the

mandatory provisions as contained in paragraphs 704 and

705 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996. Non-

compliance of the said provisions has vitiated the disciplinary

proceedings and as a result thereof, the order of the

authorities imposing penalty upon the respondents are held to

be invalid and illegal.

12. Now, the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central

Railway, the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central

Railway, Vijayawada Division, the Senior Divisional Personnel

Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division and the

Senior Commercial Manager, South Central Railway,

Vijayawada, are the appellants who have filed these appeals

against the impugned judgment and order of the Division

Bench of the High Court.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length and examined the entire material on record. Mr. C.S.

Rajan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants, contended that the High Court erred in holding

paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual

mandatory in nature. According to the learned counsel, the

instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the

Vigilance Manual are in the nature of departmental

instructions with no statutory force and these are in the

nature of guidance to the Vigilance Officers for conducting

investigation in departmental trap cases involving Railway

employees and a non-compliance if any of such instructions,

would not amount to vitiation of the entire departmental

proceedings initiated against the respondents for their

misconduct in terms of the Service Rules, therefore the

judgment of the High Court upholding the order of the

Tribunal is untenable and unsustainable.

14. Shri A. Subba Rao, the learned Advocate appearing on

behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently

contended that the order of the Tribunal as well as the final

judgment of the High Court cannot be found faulted or

perverse on any ground as the departmental proceedings

initiated against the respondents on the basis of the defective

investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in violation

of the mandatory provisions as provided in paragraphs 704

and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, had resulted prejudice

to the respondents to defend themselves in the departmental

proceedings. He submitted that the procedure as prescribed

under the Vigilance Manual is backed by statutory force and

non-adherence of the mandatory provisions by the

Investigating Officer during the investigation of trap cases or

departmental trap cases would amount to vitiation of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9

departmental proceedings based upon the defective reports of

the investigating officer submitted to the Railway Authority

against the respondents for their misconduct in discharge of

their duties. Therefore, this Court will be slow to interfere in

the judgment of the High Court.

15. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the

learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate at this

stage to refer to the relevant provisions of paragraphs 704 and

705 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996, which

read as under:-

"704. Traps

(i) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

\005\005\005\005\005.

(ii) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

\005\005\005\005\005

(iii) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

\005\005\005\005\005

(iv) \005..\005\005\005.\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

\005\005\005\005\005

(v) When laying a trap, the following important points

have to be kept in view:-

(a) Two or more independent witnesses must hear the

conversation, which should establish that the

money was being passed as illegal gratification to

meet the defence that the money was actually

received as a loan or something else, if put up by

the accused.

(b) The transaction should be within the sight and

hearing of two independent witnesses.

(c) There should be an opportunity to catch the culprit

red-handed immediately after passing of the illegal

gratification so that the accused may not be able to

dispose it of.

(d) The witnesses selected should be responsible

witnesses who have not appeared as witnesses in

earlier cases of the department or the police and are

men of status, considering the status of the

accused. It is safer to take witnesses who are

Government employees and of other departments.

(e) After satisfying the above conditions, the

Investigating Officer should take the decoy to the

SP/SPE and pass on the information to him for

necessary action. If the office of the S.P., S.P.E., is

not nearby and immediate action is required for

laying the trap, the help of the local police may be

obtained. It may be noted that the trap can be laid

only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy

Superintendent of Local Police. After the S.P.E. or

local police official have been entrusted with the

work, all arrangements for laying the trap and

execution of the same should be done by them. All

necessary help required by them should be

rendered.

(vi) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

\005\005\005\005..

(vii) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

\005\005\005\005..

Para 705 Departmental Traps

For Departmental traps, the following instructions

in addition to those contained under paras 704 are to be

followed:

(a) The Investigating Officer/Inspector should arrange

two gazetted officers from Railways to act as independent

witnesses as far as possible. However, in certain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9

exceptional cases where two gazetted officers are not

available immediately, the services of non-gazetted staff

can be utilised.

All railway employees, particularly, gazetted officers,

should assist and witness a trap whenever they are

approached by any officer or Vigilance branch. The Head

of Vigilance Branch detail a suitable person or persons to

be present at the scene of trap. Refusal to assist or

witness a trap without a just cause/without sufficient

reason may be regarded as a breach of duty, making him

liable to disciplinary action.

(b) The decoy will present the money which he will give

to the defaulting officers/employees as bribe money on

demand. A memo should be prepared by the

Investigating Officer/Inspector in the presence of the

independent witnesses and the decoy indicating the

numbers of the G.C. notes for legal and illegal

transactions. The memo, thus prepared should bear the

signature of decoy, independent witnesses and the

Investigating Officer/Inspector. Another memo, for

returning the G.D. notes to the decoy will be prepared for

making over the G.C. notes to the delinquent employee

on demand. This memo should also contain signatures

of decoy, witnesses and Investigating Officer/Inspector.

The independent witnesses will take up position at such

a place where from they can see the transaction and also

hear the conversation between the decoy and delinquent,

with a view to satisfy themselves that the money was

demanded, given and accepted as bribe \026 a fact to which

they will be deposing in the departmental proceeding at a

later date. After the money has been passed on, the

Investigating Officer/Inspector should disclose the

identity and demand, in the presence of the witnesses, to

produce all money including private, Railway and bribe

money. Then the total money produced will be verified

from relevant records and memo for seizure of the money

and verification particulars will be prepared. The

recovered notes will be kept in an envelope sealed in the

presence of the witnesses, decoy and the accused as also

his immediate superior who should be called s a witness

in case the accused refuses to sign the recovery memo,

and sealing of the notes in the envelope.

(c) XXX

(d) XXX

(e) XXX"

16. The Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court,

as noticed hereinabove, both, have held that the Instructions

contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual are

mandatory in nature and their violation by the Investigating

Agency in the process of laying traps against the respondents,

have caused prejudice to the respondents to defend their

cause in the departmental proceedings which were initiated

against the respondents by the Authority on the basis of the

defective and unfounded investigation reports prepared by the

investigation officers.

17. We may, at this stage, point out that the Vigilance

Manual which was first published in 1970 was revised in 1996

under which the departmental traps were laid against the

respondents. The revised Vigilance Manual of 1996 has now

been re-revised by the Indian Railways in the year 2006.

Paragraph 306 in Chapter III of the Indian Railways Vigilance

Manual, 2006 deals with trap cases by the C.B.I.

Departmental trap cases, procedure and guidelines are

prescribed in paragraph 307 (corresponding to paragraph 705

of the 1996 Manual). However, the present cases are covered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9

and dealt with by the procedure and guidelines as contained

in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the 1996 Manual.

18. We shall now examine 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. It is not in dispute that the departmental traps were

conducted by the investigating officers when the respondents

were on official duty undertaking journey on trains going from

one destination to another destination. The Tribunal in its

order noticed that the decoy passengers deployed by the

investigation officers were RPF Constables in whose presence

the respondents allegedly collected excess amount for

arranging sleeper class reservation accommodation etc. to the

passengers. The transaction between the decoy passengers

and the respondents was reported to have been witnessed by

the RPF Constables. In the facts and circumstances of the

matters, the Tribunal held that the investigations were

conducted by the investigating officers in violation of the

mandatory Instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705

of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, on the basis of which inquiries

were held by the Enquiry Officer which finally resulted in the

imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the Railway

Authority. The High Court in its impugned judgment has

come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Reports in the absence

of joining any independent witnesses in the departmental

traps, are found inadequate and where the Instructions

relating to such departmental trap cases are not fully adhered

to, the punishment imposed upon the basis of such defective

traps are not sustainable under law. The High Court has

observed that in the present cases the service of some RPF

Constables and Railway staff attached to the Vigilance Wing

were utilised as decoy passengers and they were also

associated as witnesses in the traps. The RPF Constables, in

no terms, can be said to be independent witnesses and non-

association of independent witnesses by the investigating

officers in the investigation of the departmental trap cases has

caused prejudice to the rights of the respondents in their

defence before the Enquiry Officers.

19. We are not inclined to agree that the non-adherence of

the mandatory Instructions and Guidelines contained in

paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual has vitiated

the departmental proceedings initiated against the

respondents by the Railway Authority. In our view, such

finding and reasoning are wholly unjustified and cannot be

sustained.

20. We have carefully gone through the contents of various

chapters of the Vigilance Manual. Chapters II, III, VIII, IX and

Chapter XIII deal with Railway Vigilance organization and its

role, Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of

Investigation, Investigation of Complaints by Railway

Vigilance, processing of vigilance cases in Railway Board,

suspension and relevant aspects of Railway Servants

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 as relevant to vigilance

work etc. Paragraphs 704 and 705, as noticed earlier, cover

the procedures and guidelines to be followed by the

investigating officers, who are entrusted with the task of

investigation of trap cases and departmental trap cases

against the railway officials. Broadly speaking, the

administrative rules, regulations and instructions, which have

no statutory force, do not give rise to any legal right in favour

of the aggrieved party and cannot be enforced in a court of law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9

against the administration. The executive orders appropriately

so-called do not confer any legally enforceable rights on any

persons and impose no legal obligation on the subordinate

authorities for whose guidance they are issued. Such an order

would confer no legal and enforceable rights on the delinquent

even if any of the directions is ignored, no right would lie.

Their breach may expose the subordinate authorities to

disciplinary or other appropriate action, but they cannot be

said to be in the nature of statutory rules having the force of

law, subject to the jurisdiction of certiorari.

21. It is well-settled that the Central Government or the State

Government can give administrative instructions to its

servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not

make such Instructions Statutory Rules which are justiciable

in certain circumstances. In order that such executive

instructions have the force of Statutory Rules, it must be

shown that they have been issued either under the authority

conferred on the Central Government or the State Government

by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution

providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any

breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any

right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against

Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

22. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [1996] 3 SCC

364, this Court held that in a case of a procedural provision

which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of

violation has to be examined from the stand point of

substantial compliance. The order passed in violation of such

a provision can be set aside only where such violation has

occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. The Court

or the Tribunal should inquire whether:-

(a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature; or

(b) whether it is procedural in character?

23. It is by now well-settled that the purposes of departmental

inquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct

aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for

violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for

breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make

satisfaction to the public. Crime is an act of commission in

violation of law or of omission of public duty. The

departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service

and efficiency of public service. [see Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation v. Sarvesh Berry \026 (2005) 10 SCC 471]. In the

cases on hand, no proceedings for commission of penal

offences were proposed to be lodged against the respondents

by the investigating officers. The Railway authority appointed

enquiry officer to hold inquiry against the respondents for

their misconducts in discharge of their official duty on the

relevant day when vigilance officers laid departmental traps

when the respondents were traveling on the above-said trains

going from one destination to another destination. The

enquiry officer held the inquiry strictly in accordance with the

provisions of the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1968 in the presence of the respondents and finally

found them guilty of misconduct on the basis of the evidence

led before the enquiry officers. The disciplinary authority, on

consideration of the inquiry reports and other material on

record, imposed punishments upon the respondents in terms

of the Service Rules. The respondents filed their revision

petitions and the appeals before the Revisional Authorities and

the Appellate Authority under the relevant service rules, which

were duly considered by the authorities.

24. On consideration of the foregoing facts and in the teeth of

the legal aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9

instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the

Vigilance Manual, 1996 are procedural in character and not of

a substantive nature. The violation thereof, if any, by the

investigating officer in conducting departmental trap cases

would not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings

initiated against the respondents on the basis of the

complaints submitted by the investigating officers to the

railway authorities. The instructions as contemplated under

paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual have been issued not

for the information of the accused in the criminal proceedings

or the delinquent in the departmental proceedings, but for the

information and guidance of the investigating officers.

25. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and

order of the High Court, upholding the orders of the Tribunal,

is not legal and justified. It is set aside accordingly.

26. These appeals are allowed. Consequently, the Writ

Petition Nos. 1489/02, 26165/2001 and 25111/01 filed before

the High Court shall stand allowed. Parties to bear their own

costs.

27. IA NO. 2 filed in CA No. 5033/2003.

We have heard Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate

appearing on behalf of All India Com. Railway Employees

Sangharsh Samiti and others \026 intervenors. Mr. Gupta has

sought to support the order of the High Court upholding the

order of the Tribunal. The appellants submitted before us

written relevant events and legal submissions in these

proceedings. It is submitted by the intervenors that in the

year 2003 they had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 518/2003 under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court

mainly claiming to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ

or writs, order or orders, direction or directions upon the

Government of India and Railway Authorities to obey/follow

the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 704 and 705 of All

India Vigilance Manual 1976 and to implement the judgment

dated 4.09.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature, A.P.

in Writ Petition No. 1489/2002 (Union of India & Ors. v. M.

Anjaneyulu & Anr.) [present C.A. No. 5031/2003]. The said

writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on

28.11.2003 on which date the following orders came to be

passed:-

"As prayed, permission to withdraw the petition

is granted with liberty to move any appropriate

application as may be advised for intervention

in SLP(C) No\005\005.CC No.5912/2003."

During the hearing of the intervention application which

was allowed by this Court on 24.02.2004, Mr. Raj Kumar

Gupta has brought to our notice that some disputes raised by

the intervenors in regard to the same subject matter are

pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as

before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for adjudication. In

view of the pendency of the matters before the Tribunal and

the High Court, we do not wish to embark upon the merits of

the claims made by the intervenors in their case pending

before the Tribunal and the High Court, which shall be

decided on their own merits. The intervention application is

accordingly rejected without expressing any opinion on its

merits.