JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Saral Srivastava appearing for the Union of India and others-the petitioners. Shri Ram Avatar Varma and Shri Kirtikar Pande have appeared for Shri Ram Bahor Yadav-respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a ‘Booking Clerk’ on 27.7.1986 and was posted at Izzat Nagar Division in North Eastern Railway. He was transferred to Varanasi in the year 1990 and was thereafter posted as ‘Head Booking Clerk’ in the year 2004. He was charge-sheeted on 27.7.2006 with the allegations of his involvement alongwith Shri Rajendra Prasad and Shri Satyabrat Tiwari in the sale of forged tickets from Azamgarh to Lokmanya Tilak Terminus. The facts were confirmed in an enquiry at Azamgarh Station from 23.12.2005. It was alleged that the tickets were provided by the petitioner and that he used to collect the money from its sales. The conduct of the petitioner was found to make his integrity doubtful and was also found to be a misconduct under Rule 3(1) and sub-rules (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railways Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 3. Shri P.C. Gaur, a retired Deputy Finance Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, was appointed as enquiry officer. It is contended that the petitioner demanded the copy of relevant documents, which were not supplied to him. The petitioner thereafter did not appear in the departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted an ex parte report on 15.3.2007 on which the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 21/30.3.2007, asking him to submit his reply within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 12.4.2007, alleging that a retired railway servant could not have been appointed as enquiry officer against him under Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and that his dismissal based on his report, was bad in the eye of law. 4. By an order dated 16.4.2007, the disciplinary authority considered the petitioner’s explanation and agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer decided to dismiss the petitioner from service under Rule 6 (ix) of the Railway Servants (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1968. In the speaking order enclosed with the order awarding punishment, it was stated that in the vigilance enquiry, it was found that the petitioner used to keep and sell forged tickets and that the tickets of all those persons, who could not board the train due to rush, were not returned and were torn off. In the speaking order enclosed with the order awarding punishment, it was stated that in the vigilance enquiry, it was found that the petitioner used to keep and sell forged tickets and that the tickets of all those persons, who could not board the train due to rush, were not returned and were torn off. The prosecution evidence established that the petitioner-Ram Bahor Yadav used to supply the counterfeit tickets causing loss to the railways. 5. The petitioner, instead of filing an appeal under Rule 18 (11) of the Railways Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 straightaway challenged the order in Original Application No. 479 of 2007 in the Central Administrative Tribunal. After exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal observed that the first main ground taken by the Counsel for the applicant was the competence of a retired railway officer to be appointed as enquiry officer. Secondly, it was contended that the respondent No. 4 namely, Dr. V.K. Singh, Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi was not competent to dismiss him as his promotion in the grade of Rs. 5000-8000 was made by the D.R.M. (P). The disciplinary enquiry was also assailed on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant. 6. The Tribunal, by its order dated 13.5.2007, directed that the order of dismissal dated 16.4.2007 shall not be given effect to and that the applicant shall be treated to be on leave. The interim order continued during the pendency of the application in the Tribunal. 7. The relevant clause of Rule 9 of the Railways Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 is quoted as below : “1. No order imposing any of the penalties specified in Clause (v) to (iv) of Rule 6 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 10, or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850) where such inquiry is held under that Act.” 8. The Tribunal found that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968, no retired servant could be appointed as enquiry officer. The Tribunal referred to the cases of Ravi Mallick v. National Film Development Corporation, (2004) 13 SCC 427 ; the judgment of this High Court dated 13.9.2007 in Civil Misc. The Tribunal found that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968, no retired servant could be appointed as enquiry officer. The Tribunal referred to the cases of Ravi Mallick v. National Film Development Corporation, (2004) 13 SCC 427 ; the judgment of this High Court dated 13.9.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44002 of 2007, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others and a decision dated 22.1.2007 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 41 of 2007, Balbir v. Union of India, in giving analogy to the meaning of the words ‘public servant’ in Rule 23 (b) of Service Rules and Regulations, 1982 relating to the service of National Film Development Corporation. It was held that the words ‘public servants’ used in Rule 23 (b) would not include the retired officer. In that case, the Central Vigilance Commission had issued instructions, permitting retired officers to be appointed as enquiry officers. It was held that the directions given by the Central Vigilance Commission will not override the rules. Relying upon these decisions, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal had, in O.A. No. 766 of 2006 in Sangeeta Ashok’s case, decided on 19.4.2006, set aside the enquiry report submitted by a retired servant as well as the punishment order. The Bench ruled that the retired servant was not fall within the expression ‘an authority’ used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965. In Writ Petition No. 44002 of 2007, filed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the High Court held in its judgment dated 13.9.2007 that Rule 14 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 contemplates appointment of an enquiry officer. Rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provide : “14 (2). Where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth or any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof.” 9. The High Court held that the disciplinary authority under Rule 14 (2) may either hold the enquiry himself or through an authority appointed under the Rules or under the provisions of Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850. The High Court held that the disciplinary authority under Rule 14 (2) may either hold the enquiry himself or through an authority appointed under the Rules or under the provisions of Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850. Section 3 of the Act of 1850 provides : “Authorities to whom enquiry may be committed—Notice to accused.—The enquiry may be committed either to the Court, Board or other authority to which the person accused is subordinate or to any other person or persons, to be specially appointed by the Government, Commissioners for the purpose, notice of which commission shall be given to the person accused ten days at least before the beginning of the enquiry.” 10. The High Court then held on an interpretation of these rules that appointment of Commission of Enquiry to a retired person or other person is to be made in respect of the new cases by the Central Government as the need may be, and such specific appointments of Commissioner for the purpose of enquiry has to be intimated to the accused at least 10 days prior to the beginning of the enquiry. The High Court observed that ‘Commissions of Enquiry’ are not the same as the departmental proceedings and agreed with the Ravi Mallick’s case, in holding that the enquiry officer against a Government servant under the CCA (CCS) Rules, has to be a person in active service of the State. The appointment of retired Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was in violation of the rules and until rules are amended, retired employee could not be appointed as enquiry officer. 11. The Tribunal then held that the CCS (CCA) Rules, with regard to appointment of an enquiry officer, are in pari materia with Rule 9 (2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and that the ratio of the judgment would apply to the current case as well. The Tribunal then examined the guidelines/order dated 29.7.1998, which is a circular of the Railway Board forming a panel of retired Railway officers for appointment as enquiry officers for conducting departmental enquiries arising out of vigilance cases in the cases of non-gazetted staff. The Tribunal then examined the guidelines/order dated 29.7.1998, which is a circular of the Railway Board forming a panel of retired Railway officers for appointment as enquiry officers for conducting departmental enquiries arising out of vigilance cases in the cases of non-gazetted staff. This circular provides for constituting a panel of retired senior scale, and JA grade officers for the purpose of appointment of enquiry officers, on case to case basis, on fixed remuneration per enquiry, to conduct departmental enquiries against non-gazetted Railway servants under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The eligibility, terms and conditions, and the premises where such enquiries are to be conducted, are detailed in the letter. Paras 1.1 to 1.4 of the circular letter relevant for the purpose of the case are as follows : “1.1. Eligibility.—Indian Railways retired senior-scale and JA grade officers of proven integrity. 1.2. Age.—The retired officer shall not be more than 62 years of age as on 1st January of the year in which he or she is being empanelled. 1.3. Generally the enquiries shall be conducted at Divisional Railway Headquarters. 1.4 The panel will be revived every year.” 12. The Tribunal observed that the circular of Railway Board dated 29.7.1998 will not supercede, sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968. The executive instructions cannot enlarge the meaning of words ‘other authority’ in sub rule (2) of Rule 9. If the Railways want that the retired servants should also be included within the scope of ‘other authority’, suitable amendments in the rule will be required. The Original Application was consequently allowed and the dismissal order as well as the enquiry report were quashed with liberty to the respondents to get the enquiry held afresh in accordance with the rules. The Tribunal by its order dated 5.10.2007, quashed the dismissal order dated 16.4.2007 and the enquiry report dated 15.4.2007, with liberty to get the enquiry held afresh in accordance with the Rules of 1968, by appointing eligible person as enquiry officer under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 and directed that the position of the applicant will remain same as it was on 15.4.2007. 13. Shri Saral Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the circulars of the Railway Board are issued under Section 123 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, and have statutory force. 13. Shri Saral Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the circulars of the Railway Board are issued under Section 123 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, and have statutory force. The Railway Board has authority to fill in the lacuna or the silences under the Rules of 1968. The words ‘other authority’ have not been defined under the Rules of 1968, and thus the Railway Board under its powers to make statutory rules was authorised to form a panel and provide for the other authority under the Rules to hold the disciplinary enquiry against non-gazetted Railway servants. He submits that the words ‘public servant’ in Rule 23 (b) of the Service Rules and Regulations 1982, are applicable to the employees of National Film Development Corporation and the word ‘authority’ under the CCS (CCA) Rules may have a limited scope, whereas Railway Boards Circulars have been given statutory force to make rules. In B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118 the Railway Boards circulars are held to have statutory force. The word ‘authority’ in Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 1968 should not be given a restricted meaning. Shri Saral Srivastava would submit that the words ‘ other authority’ includes a retired railway servant. 14. Shri Saral Srivastava further submits that taking into account the number of departmental enquiries pending against non-gazetted Railway servants, the decision of the Railway Board to conduct enquiries through the railway Government servants, is in the interest of the delinquent railway employees, facing enquiries to conclude the enquiry proceedings expeditiously. The Railway Board has taken care to provide the terms and conditions, which include the powers given to the disciplinary authority to terminate the services of the enquiry officer at any stage. In para 2 (i) of the Circular dated 29.7.1998, the Railway Board has taken care of providing the control over the retired railway officers, and while conducting the departmental enquiries, they are under the control of the disciplinary authority. 15. Shri Ram Avatar Varma has provided a plain meaning of the words ‘other authority’. He submits, with simplicity, that the word ‘authority’ signifies a person having some power and control. A railway officer ceases to be an authority after his retirement and thus he cannot be included in the words ‘other authority’ under Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 1968. He submits, with simplicity, that the word ‘authority’ signifies a person having some power and control. A railway officer ceases to be an authority after his retirement and thus he cannot be included in the words ‘other authority’ under Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 1968. He also submits that the authorities contemplated under the rules for holding enquiry namely the disciplinary authority himself, a board of enquiry or other authority, in the context would include a serving railway officer and not a retired railway officers to enquire into the truth of the allegations constituting the charges. 16. We have gone through the records; the provisions of the rules and considered the submissions, and find ourselves in agreement with the Tribunal that the words ‘other authority’ will not include the retired Railway officers in its ambit. The reasoning in our opinion to arrive at the conclusion is given as below : (1) A disciplinary enquiry is initiated to ascertain the truth of the allegations, which constitute a charge/s against the delinquent employee. Ordinarily the disciplinary authority himself should conduct the enquiry. If for any reason, he does not find it expedient to hold the disciplinary enquiry himself, he has the powers to delegate his authority to conduct the enquiry. The delegation, however, should be made to a person, who has the powers and authority to summons the records; take and record documentary and oral evidence, to permit cross-examination of witnesses; carry out inspections, if the necessity so arises, to find out the truth of the allegations. The enquiry officer should also have the working knowledge of the functioning of the department, the rules and regulations under which the employees are required to perform their duties and the nature of work performed by the delinquent employees. It is in this context that the words ‘other authority’ in the rules may be interpreted. (2) Ordinarily, the rules provide for an enquiry by the disciplinary authority. Rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, uses the expression ‘an authority’. This Court has found in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case, relying upon Ravi Mallick’s case, that the words ‘an authority do not include a retired officer. In Ravi Mallick’s case the Supreme Court found that the Vigilance Commission could not have issued instructions contrary to the statutory rules. This Court has found in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case, relying upon Ravi Mallick’s case, that the words ‘an authority do not include a retired officer. In Ravi Mallick’s case the Supreme Court found that the Vigilance Commission could not have issued instructions contrary to the statutory rules. (3) It is not disputed that the Railway Board has powers under the Railway Establishment Code to make rules and that in respect of rules regarding service conditions of the employees, the power is drawn from the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 123 of the Railway Establishment Code, the President has authorised the Railway Board to make rules for general application to non-gazetted Railway servants under their control. These Rules, however, are not provided to override the statutory rules made governing the service conditions of the employees. Where the field is covered and the expression provided in the rule has a definite meaning with the object and purpose to be achieved and that such meaning is not ambiguous or doubtful and does not need any extrinsic aid, the Railway Board would not issue instructions to supplement or supplant the rules. Where such requirement arises, the Railway Board must do so specifically by making a statement to that effect in its circular. In the present case, the Railway Boards letter dated 29.7.1998 only provides to form a panel and its conditions. It does not refer to or expressly supplement or fill in any gap in the Rule 9 (2) of Rules of 1968. (4) We find considerable force in the submission of Shri Ram Avatar Varma, that a Railway servant looses the authority on his retirement. He has no administrative control over his subordinates or an authority to carry out the purposes of taking evidence under the rules. He may draw his authority from the delegation of powers by the disciplinary authority, but then for the effective exercise of those powers, he must possess an authority himself, to conduct an enquiry for ascertaining the truth. (5) An authority conducting the disciplinary enquiry into the allegations constituting a charge/s, is under a responsibility. The entire career of delinquent railway servant depends upon the report submitted by the enquiry officer. (5) An authority conducting the disciplinary enquiry into the allegations constituting a charge/s, is under a responsibility. The entire career of delinquent railway servant depends upon the report submitted by the enquiry officer. A retired railway officer is not equipped and would lack the commitment and motivation both for lack of authority and interest and may be actuated with purpose other than to disciplined railway servants. He will not be subjected to administrative and disciplinary control of the disciplinary authority. (6) The anxiety of the Railway board to conduct the enquiry expeditiously and to engage retired railway officers for that purpose may be appreciated, but it is not fraught with the danger of turning out to be unfair and arbitrary exercise of powers by a person, who hardly possesses powers after his retirement and is not subject to disciplinary action by the Disciplinary Authority. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we agree with the opinion expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, that the words ‘other authority’ in Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 1968 will not include a retired railway officer and that empanelment of the retired railway officers by the Railway Board’s letter dated 29.7.1998 does not constitute amendment of the rules. 18. The writ petition is dismissed. ————