The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that railway authorities must provide clear reasons and adequate notice to selected candidates before cancelling promotion panels due to alleged procedural irregularities or malpractices. The decision upholds the Central Administrative Tribunal’s stance (except on the direction to segregate “tainted” from “untainted” candidates), relies on established precedent, and serves as binding authority within the State of West Bengal and persuasive value elsewhere in similar service matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP.CT/204/2024 of THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs ANUP MONDAL AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0349052024 |
| Date of Registration | 15-07-2024 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD (SUCCEEDED BY HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA — AGREED) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA (Concurring) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD, JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere in service matters |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, except direction to segregate “tainted”/“untainted” candidates (which is set aside) |
| Type of Law | Service Law; Administrative Law; Principles of Natural Justice |
| Questions of Law | Whether cancellation of a railway promotion panel based on alleged irregularities requires assignment of reasons and notice to selectees in compliance with RBE 192/2019 and rules of natural justice. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that before cancelling a promotion panel due to alleged procedural irregularities or malpractices, the railway authorities must
Mere reference to “administrative account” or a vague, unspecific vigilance report, without disclosure or opportunity of reply, is procedurally invalid and violates principles of natural justice. Orders reiterating prior cancellations without fresh reasons or disclosure do not cure the defect. The Tribunal’s direction to segregate “tainted” and “untainted” candidates was set aside due to absence of any facts or parameters justifying such an exercise. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut (2002) 4 SCC 726; Dileshwar Kumar v. Union of India (MAT 95 of 2009 – distinguished) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | RBE No. 192 of 2019; Rule 228 IREM Vol. 1; Rule 12 Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987; Principles of natural justice (reasoned orders, opportunity of hearing) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Railway employees were selected for promotion to Goods Guard posts through 15% LDCE, found eligible and included in the panel dated 08.12.2022; candidates were sent for training. The panel was cancelled on 17.04.2023 citing administrative reasons linked to a vague vigilance report, without assignment of specific reasons or disclosure of investigation. Only a general notice dated 12.04.2023 was issued, not providing concrete opportunity to reply. No supporting vigilance advice was produced before the Tribunal. The CAT set aside the cancellation and required proper procedure, but also directed authorities to segregate “tainted”/“untainted” candidates, a direction which the High Court now sets aside as unfounded in fact. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within West Bengal jurisdiction; all authorities subject to Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Tribunals handling similar railway service disputes; national service law matters |
| Overrules | Sets aside only the Tribunal’s paragraph 13.1 requiring segregation of “tainted”/“untainted” candidates |
| Distinguishes | Dileshwar Kumar v. Union of India (MAT 95 of 2009): Distinguished on facts, as reasons for cancellation were explicit there |
| Follows | Vinodan T. and Others v. University of Calicut (2002) 4 SCC 726: On requirements for cancelling selection panels |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The cancellation of a promotion panel in Railways (and by implication, other public authorities) requires disclosure of specific reasons and evidence of irregularity, not a vague “administrative account.”
- Notice to selected candidates must be concrete and afford a real, effective opportunity of reply; a bland intimation is not sufficient.
- Failure to produce the very vigilance report or advice relied on for cancellation invalidates the action—such omission will be presumed fatal.
- The direction to segregate “tainted”/“untainted” candidates is not justified unless there are concrete, recorded findings or evidence of malpractice attributable to specific individuals.
- The Calcutta High Court bindingly affirms the procedural mandate of RBE No. 192 of 2019 and Rule 228 of IREM as requiring prior notice and reasoned orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analysed the notice and subsequent office order cancelling LDCE promotion panels, finding both devoid of specific, stated reasons and failing to specify any irregularity or candidate involvement.
- The reference to “vigilance enquiry” was generic. The vigilance advice/report, pivotal to justify the action, was neither disclosed to the Tribunal nor appended in reply, contravening Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
- The requirement under RBE No. 192 of 2019 (“due notice should be given to candidates declared selected”) and the note to Rule 228 of IREM were read as mandatory and not complied with.
- The Court cited Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut to reinforce that cancellation of panels must be for “well-founded reasons” and not arbitrarily.
- The coordinate Bench’s decision in Dileshwar Kumar v. Union of India was distinguished, holding it inapplicable because, in that case, concrete irregularities were specified and recorded.
- The direction by the Tribunal to segregate “tainted” and “untainted” candidates was set aside: there were no factual findings or reasons attributing malpractice to individual candidates, so segregation was baseless.
- The writ by the Railways was dismissed; the selected candidates’ writ was allowed only to the extent indicated.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Railways)
- Asserted legal obligation to cancel promotion due to a vigilance report indicating selection irregularities.
- Claimed that notice dated 12.04.2023 was issued and opportunity of hearing provided.
- Argued that procedural fairness was observed.
- Relied on Dileshwar Kumar v. Union of India (MAT 95 of 2009) to contend justification for panel cancellation under similar circumstances.
Respondent (Promoted Candidates/Applicants)
- Highlighted the Tribunal’s categorical finding that no specific reasons were provided for cancellation, nor cogent material produced.
- Asserted that direction to segregate “tainted” and “untainted” candidates was unwarranted in absence of proof of malpractice/irregularity.
- Alleged non-compliance with Rule 12 of CAT Procedure Rules for failure to produce vigilance report.
- Invoked violation of RBE 192/2019 (requirement of notice).
- Claimed entitlement to the benefit of their selection and training, as cancellation happened without due process.
Factual Background
A promotion panel of Goods Guard in Railways was published after a departmental LDCE selection in December 2022. The selected candidates commenced requisite training. While in training, the panel was abruptly cancelled on the basis of unspecified “administrative account” allegedly arising out of a vigilance complaint and enquiry. Only a general intimation was sent; no specific instances of malpractice or supporting vigilance documentation was disclosed. The Tribunal set aside the cancellation for want of procedural fairness, but ordered segregation of “tainted”/“untainted” candidates without factual basis, which the High Court now partly sets aside.
Statutory Analysis
- RBE No. 192 of 2019: Mandates that when a selection is cancelled post-result due to procedural flaws/malpractice, “due notice should be given to the candidates declared selected.”
- Rule 228 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. 1: The note reiterates the requirement of notice to selected candidates before cancellation due to irregularity/malpractice.
- Rule 12 of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987: Requires respondents to file and support replies with documentary evidence; omission to supply vigilance report was fatal.
- The Court interpreted these rules as imposing binding procedural requirements, not discretionary guidelines, and no constitutional provisions were discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Justice Supratim Bhattacharya fully concurred with Justice Madhuresh Prasad. There is no dissent or alternative reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court reinforced the need for not just procedural formality (mere notice), but substantive compliance: specific reasons, disclosure of material relied upon, and real opportunity for affected individuals to respond.
- The practice of setting aside directions for “segregation” absent concrete facts is clarified as a limit to administrative remedial powers.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed and applied established principles of natural justice and Railway procedural requirements; did not overrule or create conflict with higher court precedent.