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.