Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Order Date: 17 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Dinesh Kumar Jethalal Parmar, a railway employee who joined the railways in 1972, promoted to Welfare Inspector in 1981 and Assistant Personnel Officer in 1995.
- Respondent: Union of India through Secretary & others.
- Background: A charge‑sheet dated 12 Feb 1999 alleged Parmar, while serving as APO(C)‑CCG, concealed his daughter’s candidature for the NTPC examination conducted by RRB/Mumbai on 12 June 1996 and abused his position to favor her, including requesting nomination as centre‑in‑charge, obtaining the answer‑cum‑question paper, and directing subordinate Raju Worlikar to solve and tick‑mark answers.
- Parallel charge‑sheet (24 Feb 1999) was filed against S.A. Gajre, the officer‑in‑charge of the same centre, accusing him of giving a misleading statement that Parmar was not present at the school on 23 Aug 1996 between 10:00‑12:30 hrs. Gajre died on 28 June 2000; his disciplinary proceedings were closed on 2 Aug 2000.
- Inquiry against Parmar examined witnesses P.K. Goel, Raju Worlikar, P. Kulkarni, and Shri Bankar. The inquiry officer concluded the charges were established; the Disciplinary Authority imposed removal from service on 8 Apr 2005. An appeal was dismissed on 8 Sep 2006.
- Parmar approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his application, holding that the railway followed a fair procedure and that the tribunal could not assess the evidence’s reliability.
- Parmar contended that (i) Gajre’s statement proving his absence was suppressed, (ii) the railway conducted separate inquiries instead of a joint inquiry as mandated by Rule 13 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and (iii) the charge‑sheet was filed three years after the alleged incident, indicating mala‑fide intent.
- The court examined the original records, including Gajre’s answers to a questionnaire dated 11 Aug 1996, which affirmed that Parmar was not available between 10:00‑12:30 hrs and only took over the afternoon session.
- The court observed that the railway failed to conduct a common proceeding despite multiple employees (Parmar, Gajre, invigilator Dheeraj Baria, and clerk R.D. Parmar/ DD Bankar) being implicated in a coordinated alleged misconduct.
- The court noted contradictions in the testimony of Raju Worlikar and the lack of any inquiry against him, as well as the fact that Parmar’s daughter had actually failed the examination, undermining the alleged benefit.
- The court cited Rule 13 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which empowers the highest authority to order common proceedings when two or more servants are involved.
- Finding the railway’s disciplinary process arbitrary, prejudicial, and violative of the statutory requirement of a joint inquiry, the court held that the removal order and its affirmation by the appellate authority and CAT were unsustainable.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is allowed; the removal‑from‑service order against D.J. Parmar and its affirmation by the appellate authority and the CAT are quashed.
- Parmar is entitled to all consequential benefits, which must be computed and paid within eight weeks from the date of the order.
Topics: Legal Judgment, Railway Discipline