RAKESH KUMAR MEENA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9875/2023 RAKESH KUMAR MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raghwendra Tiwari, Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL ORDER (ORAL) % 02.05.2025 REVIEW PET. 246/2025-Review of order dt. 28.01.25 & CM APPL. 26296/2025 (Exemption), CM APPL. 26297/2025 (delay of 56 days in filing Review Petition) 1. The only argument advanced by Mr. Raghwendra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner, in respect of this writ petition, is that, as the petitioner had admitted the charges against him and that, therefore, there was no requirement of holding an inquiry. He has relied, for this purpose, on Rule 9 (9) of The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which reads thus: “9 (a) (i) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall consider the same and decide whether the inquiry should be proceeded with under this rule. (ii) Where the disciplinary authority decides to proceed with the inquiry it may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted or appoint under sub-rule(2) a Board of Inquiry or other authority for the purpose. (iii) Where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 9875/2023 Page 1 of 2 KUMAR Signing Date:05.05.2025 19:53:44 Railway servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge, after taking such further evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in rule 10. (iv) If the disciplinary authority, after consideration of the written statement of defence,