Yatin K. Patel vs. Central Railside Warehouse Company LTD

2026

Thereafter, a complaint was made by Ajay Kumar Singh of Amba Enterprises, alleging that two transfers of ₹1,50,000/- each made on 24th December, 2018 to M/s Foamik Colors were, in truth, illegal gratification demanded by the Petitioner. Separately, vigilance examined an invoice submitted by the Petitioner for business-promotion expenses. On 12th December, 2019, a charge memorandum was issued to the Petitioner and Inquiry Officer was appointed on 7th January, 2020. The inquiry culminated in a report dated 27th June, 2021. The Petitioner submitted his representation on 5th July, 2021. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed the impugned order of removal on 28th July, 2021. The Petitioner’s appeal against this order was rejected by the Board on 22nd November, 2021, and that decision was communicated to him on 11th January, 2022. 4. The impugned disciplinary action rests on three articles of charge, extracted hereinbelow: Article of Charge-I: Shri Yatin K Patel, DGM (Commercial) while working as Head of Marketing Department at Corporate Office, New Delhi failed to maintain absolute integrity and tarnished the reputation of the Company while taking a gratification of ₹3,00,000/- from a service provider i.e M/s Amba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd through a private firm M/s Foamic Colors where in his brother is actively involved, as detailed in the statement of imputations of misconduct enclosed as Annex.-II. Thus, Shri Yatin K Patel, DGM (Commercial) failed to maintain absolute integrity, while taking illegal gratification and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation, thereby contravened Rule

Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned orders cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. He submits that the Petitioner was proceeded against on three charges, but none of them, properly examined, justified the extreme penalty of removal from service. The grievance is that the Disciplinary Authority proceeded more on suspicion and adverse inference than on proof, and that the Appellate Authority, instead of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

As regards Article I, counsel submits that the charge of illegal gratification was never established even on the standard applicable to departmental proceedings. It is contended that the material on record merely indicates that two amounts of ₹1,50,000/- each were transferred by Amba Enterprises to Foamik Colors on 24th December, 2018. This fact, by itself, does not establish either demand or receipt by the Petitioner or any conscious routing of money to him through Foamik Colors. More significantly, the record does not identify the specific favour allegedly secured by such payment. Counsel submits that the contract had already been awarded to Amba Enterprises on 19th December, 2018, prior to the transfers dated 24th December, 2018. Therefore, the very foundation of quid pro quo is absent, since no “official act” before or after the payment has been proved to have been performed, promised, or withheld by the Petitioner in consideration of the alleged gratification.

It is further submitted that the allegation must be appreciated in the proper factual context. Counsel explains that Amba Enterprises had begun defaulting in performance at Alamnagar, and that the Petitioner, in his capacity as the concerned officer and with due approval from higher authorities, issued a show cause notice dated 18th June, 2019 to Amba, followed by a termination notice dated 16th August, 2019. The allegation of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

Reliance is also placed on the explanation furnished by Foamik Colors, which clarified that the payments in question were for business purposes and later described them as security deposit for dealership/distribution. Reference is also made to the website material of Amba Enterprises to show that its activities included erection and painting of structures, whereas Foamik Colors was engaged in dealing with liquid colours and allied materials. Counsel contends that this presents a plausible and documented explanation which the Respondent was bound to dislodge through cogent material if the charge of bribery was to be sustained. Instead, the authorities merely assumed that because the Petitioner’s brother was associated with Foamik, any transfer to Foamik must necessarily represent illegal gratification to the Petitioner, an approach which amounts to an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof.

A further limb of the Petitioner’s challenge to Article I pertains to the selective nature of the inquiry. It is pointed out that, according to the complaint, both the Petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Nair were implicated; however, the vigilance department chose to proceed only against the Petitioner, while examining Sudhir Nair as PW-2. This is not a mere procedural irregularity, but goes to the root of fairness of the inquiry. A co- accused in the very allegation of gratification could not, without adequate explanation, be converted into a prosecution witness while the Petitioner alone was charge-sheeted. This, it is submitted, substantially undermines the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

On Article II, it is contended that the Respondent’s own findings do not sustain the charge. The allegation pertained to conflict of interest and misuse of position; however, neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority held the conflict-of-interest aspect to be proved. At best, the finding is limited to the Petitioner having introduced Ajay Kumar Singh to his brother in his office. Counsel submits that such an introduction, being at most a social or courteous act, cannot constitute misconduct of the nature alleged. It is thus contended that, once the element of conflict of interest failed, Article II could not survive as an independent ground for imposition of penalty.

As regards Article III, counsel does not dispute that the vigilance inquiry noted discrepancies in the invoice; however, he contends that the Petitioner had purchased Bosch items from M/s Raman & Ramesh, Lucknow, during a short official visit, and the invoice on its face bore the vendor’s name, GST number and product description. It is urged that a purchaser in such a setting cannot reasonably be expected to detect, at the point of sale, whether the invoice being supplied was genuine or whether the vendor later intended to disown it. He also submits that no reimbursement was actually released to the Petitioner on the basis of that invoice, and that the Respondent did not produce any material to rule out the possibility that the vendor, faced with scrutiny from vigilance, had disowned the invoice to shield itself from non-compliance of tax obligations and resultant consequences. Counsel further states that similar business-promotion expenses incurred by others were processed without comparable verification, again reflecting selective treatment. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

Counsel for the Respondent, at the threshold, submits that the writ petition is misconceived both on the scope of judicial scrutiny and on merits. It is contended that the Petitioner is, in substance, asking the Court to reopen and re-appreciate the evidence led in a departmental inquiry, which is impermissible in the exercise of judicial review under Article 226. The Respondent places reliance on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan,3 State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao,4 Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra,5 Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran6 and SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava7 to submit that the writ court is concerned with the fairness of the decision-making process and not with the correctness of the conclusion on facts, so long as there is some material to support the finding and the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. The Respondent further raises a preliminary objection

The Respondent also invites the Court to view the present matter in the backdrop of the Petitioner’s prior service record, submitting that the Petitioner had earlier faced more than one disciplinary action, including a minor penalty in relation to an H&T tender at RWC Nasik Road, a major penalty in the matter of allotment of a handling and transport contract at Jogeshwari Terminal, a memorandum warning him to remain vigilant in his dealings in relation to deviations from procurement policy, and another minor penalty of censure concerning procurement lapses at Alam Nagar. The Respondent submits that the present matter, therefore, cannot be seen in isolation and that the Petitioner’s conduct while functioning in commercial matters has already attracted disciplinary scrutiny on earlier occasions.

Turning to the present proceedings, the Respondent submits that the charge memorandum was issued strictly under Rule 35 read with Rule 33 of the 2012 Rules; the Petitioner denied the charges; an Inquiry Officer was appointed; both sides were afforded opportunity to lead evidence; the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 27th June, 2021; the report was furnished to the Petitioner; his representation dated 5th July, 2021 was duly considered; and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 28th July, 2021. Further, the Appellate Authority, namely the Board of Directors, also examined the appeal and the relevant record before rejecting the same on 22nd November, 2021. On that basis, the Respondent maintains that there is neither procedural irregularity nor any breach of natural justice.

As regards Article I, the Respondent contends that, while heading the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

The Respondent disputes the Petitioner’s reliance on the explanation furnished by Foamik Colors that the amounts represented a security deposit. It is contended that, had there been a genuine business arrangement between Amba Enterprises and Foamik Colors, the same would have been supported by documentary evidence and financial dealings beyond the two impugned transfers. However, no such subsequent transactions were shown for a considerable period. It is further submitted that the nature of business of Amba Enterprises, being primarily manpower and transportation, was distinct from that of Foamik Colors, which dealt in plastic colours, thereby rendering the explanation implausible. On this basis, it is contended that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in treating the “security deposit” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

In relation to Article II, the Respondent submits that the inquiry established that the Petitioner used his official position and office premises to introduce a service provider of CRWC to a private entity connected with his brother. It is contended that such conduct was improper, reflected lack of absolute integrity, and justified the Disciplinary Authority’s conclusion that, even if the conflict element was not fully proved, the surrounding circumstances disclosed misconduct.

On Article III, the Respondent submits that the Petitioner sought reimbursement of ₹24,501/- on the basis of invoice No. RR/18-19/11549 dated 22nd January, 2019, said to have been issued by Raman & Ramesh, Lucknow, for Bosch items allegedly purchased for business promotion. The vigilance division wrote to the vendor on 27th November, 2019 seeking verification. Raman & Ramesh, by e-mail dated 3rd December, 2019, replied that the invoice was not authentic and pointed out a series of irregularities: their original bills were on pink paper and not white paper; the signature on the invoice produced by the Petitioner was not theirs; the original invoice bearing the same number was raised for bolts and not for Bosch appliances; and a cash bill above ₹20,000/- could not be raised in the manner reflected in the submitted document. The vendor also furnished what it claimed to be the original invoice corresponding to the same number. On this basis, it is contended that the charge of submission of a fake invoice stood duly established, and the Petitioner cannot evade responsibility by suggesting that the vendor later disowned the invoice for tax reasons.

It is further contended that even on the Petitioner’s own showing, the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

The Respondent asserts that once the competent authorities concurrently found Articles I and III proved, and found material against the Petitioner even on Article II, the Court ought not to interfere merely because another view of the evidence is possible. It is also stated that removal from service did not operate as a disqualification for future employment under Government or Government-controlled corporations, and that the penalty was therefore neither arbitrary nor shockingly disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.

The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. Before turning to the merits, one preliminary objection must be dealt with, at the outset. The Respondent contends that the writ petition ought not to be entertained because Rule 50 of the 2012 Rules provides for review. That objection does not detain the Court. The challenge here is to the final disciplinary and appellate orders. More importantly, the Schedule to the 2012 Rules indicates that, for an executive in the relevant category, the Board of Directors is designated as both the Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority. In these circumstances, having regard to the substantial lapse of time since the filing of this petition, the availability of a further remedy of review before the same authority cannot be regarded as an equally efficacious alternative so as to operate as a bar to the exercise of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

The law governing judicial review in disciplinary matters is settled. The Court does not sit in appeal over departmental findings. It does not reweigh evidence merely because another view may also be possible. The standard in a disciplinary inquiry is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but proof on a preponderance of probabilities. At the same time, even that standard requires a rational basis. A finding that is wholly capricious and arbitrary, rests on no evidence, or travels beyond what the material can reasonably establish, remains open to correction in judicial review. This view is supported by the judgements in Ajai Kumar Srivastava, P. Gunasekaran, Chitra Venkata Rao and A.K. Chopra.

Against that legal backdrop, three issues arise. First, whether Article I, the charge of illegal gratification, was lawfully found proved. Secondly, whether Article II survives at all in the face of the Inquiry Officer’s own finding that conflict of interest was not proved. Thirdly, whether Article III, concerning the invoice, discloses sufficient material to sustain a finding of misconduct, and, if so, what follows for the punishment imposed. Article I

Article I charged the Petitioner with taking illegal gratification of ₹3,00,000/- from Amba Enterprises through Foamik Colors, in alleged violation of Rule 4(1)(i) read with Rules 5(2) and 5(5) of the 2012 Rules. Under the Rules, the relevant misconduct is the taking or giving of bribes or illegal gratification, along with conduct prejudicial to the interests of the corporation.

The material relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to establish Article I consisted of: two transfers of ₹1,50,000/- each made by Amba Enterprises to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

The difficulty is not that inference is impermissible in a departmental inquiry; rather, it is that the crucial link in the chain of inference is absent. The deficiency herein is not of form, but of substance. The issue is not whether funds were transferred between Amba Enterprises and Foamik Colors, but whether such transfer constituted illegal gratification received by the Petitioner. A transfer of funds by one entity to another does not, without more, establish payment of illegal gratification to a third person merely because of a familial association. There must be some material connecting the transfer to the Petitioner’s official conduct, and indicating the purpose of the payment and the corresponding benefit sought or obtained. That essential linkage is lacking on the present record.

The Disciplinary Authority also fails to cure that defect. It largely reiterates the Inquiry Officer’s conclusion, notes the Petitioner’s response, and observes that Article I is “amply proved” because ₹3,00,000/- was deposited by Amba in the account of Foamik Colors. However, it does not confront the real point: even if all those surrounding facts are taken at their highest against the Petitioner, where is the material proving demand, receipt, or quid pro quo?

The Petitioner, in his defence, stated that the meeting in his office was incidental, that he introduced his brother to Ajay Kumar Singh only as a courtesy, that he had no role in any business transaction between Amba and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

The timing of the transfer is also of significance; however, neither authority deals with it in a meaningful manner. The contract was awarded to Amba on 19th December, 2018, whereas the transfers were made on 24th December, 2018. If the case were, (which is not), that the payment was made to secure the award itself, the chronology does not align with that theory. Alternatively, if the case is that the payment was made for some continuing indulgence thereafter, it was incumbent upon the authorities to identify the nature of such indulgence. No such finding, however, has been returned. On the contrary, the material placed on record indicates that Amba was subjected to adverse action on account of poor performance, including the show cause notice dated 18th June, 2019 and termination notice dated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

The treatment of the explanation given by Foamik is equally unsatisfactory. Foamik Colors described the payment as being for business purposes, later explaining it as a security deposit for dealership/distribution, which amount was ultimately refunded. While the authorities were entitled to test this explanation with care, they were not entitled to bypass it. The website extract of Amba demonstrates that its business profile was not confined to manpower and transport alone; it included, among other things, fabrication, erection and painting of structures. This material may not conclusively establish the correctness of the business explanation; however, it certainly renders it impermissible to treat the payment as self-proving evidence of corruption. Once such an explanation existed on record, the burden remained on the department to displace it by some cogent material. That burden could not be discharged by merely calling upon the Petitioner to explain a transaction between two independent entities.

The subsequent refund of the amount from Foamik to Amba is another circumstance noted by the authorities without proper analysis. If the refund was to be treated as incriminating, it was necessary to explain why it indicated concealment of bribery rather than the failure of a proposed business arrangement or return of a deposit. No such reasoning is forthcoming. The refund is merely juxtaposed with the original transfer to heighten suspicion. However, suspicion is not proof on a balance of probabilities and does not answer the central question as to whether the Petitioner received illegal gratification. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

Put differently, Article I has been treated by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority as proved largely because the surrounding circumstances appeared adverse to the Petitioner. However, adverse or awkward circumstances do not amount to proof of bribery. The charge, being grave, required some cogent material on the essential elements: demand or solicitation, receipt or acceptance, and a nexus with official favour. None of these is established with the requisite clarity. The standard of proof in departmental proceedings does not dispense with the need for reasoned conclusions based on cogent material. That threshold is not met here. Therefore, even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the conclusion on Article I is unsafe. Article II

The charge under Article II was one of misuse of official position and conflict of business interest. However, the Inquiry Officer, as well as the Disciplinary Authority, found that the element of conflict of interest was not established, as no business dealings between Amba Enterprises and Foamik This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

Such a circumstance, in isolation, cannot sustain Article II as framed. A mere introduction in one’s office does not amount to misuse of position or conflict of business interest in the sense alleged. Once the core element of conflict stood unproved, the charge, in substance, failed. At best, the material establishes that an introduction took place; it does not demonstrate that the Petitioner placed himself in a position adverse to the interests of the Respondent. Accordingly, Article II cannot be held to be established. Article III

The charge contemplated in Article III alleges that the Petitioner submitted a fake invoice, bearing No. RR/18-19/11549, dated 22nd January, 2019 for ₹24,501/- in support of a reimbursement claim for business- promotion expenditure. On this charge, the documentary material is altogether more substantial.

The vigilance division sent the invoice to the concerned vendor, Raman & Ramesh, on 27th November, 2019 for verification. In its reply dated 3rd December, 2019, the vendor stated that the invoice was not authentic and supported that assertion with specific particulars. According to the vendor, its bills were printed on pink stationery and not on white paper; the signature appearing on the submitted invoice was not its own; the original invoice bearing No. RR/18-19/11549 had, in fact, been issued for 10 pieces of Allen bolts described as “H.T. Allen/Hex/Nut/Fastener”; and a cash bill above ₹20,000/- could not have been raised in the manner reflected in that document. The vendor also enclosed the original invoice for the same number, which differed materially in content, amount and the goods This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

The Petitioner contends that he purchased the items, that the invoice looked regular on its face, that he could not reasonably detect any falsity on the spot, and that the vendor may have later denied the invoice to avoid GST consequences. He also points out that no reimbursement was ever actually released. However, these submissions remain in the realm of alternative possibilities. In judicial review, the Court is concerned with whether there existed some material on which the Disciplinary Authority could reasonably act. In the case of Article III, such material clearly existed, namely, a direct verification from the vendor, a categorical denial of the invoice, and production of a different invoice bearing the same number.

The fact that no reimbursement was ultimately released also does not exonerate the Petitioner. The charge pertains to the submission of a false invoice in support of a claim. If the supporting document is found to be fabricated, the absence of actual disbursement may have a bearing on the gravity of misconduct or the quantum of penalty, but does not negate the misconduct itself.

The Court therefore finds no reason to overturn the decision regarding Article III. The record on that charge crosses the threshold of “no evidence” by a clear margin. The Petitioner’s alternate explanation may or may not be true; however, deciding between those rival possibilities in the manner of an appellate fact-finding body is not the function of the writ court. On Article III, the impugned finding can stand.

That brings the Court to the consequence of the aforesaid observations. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is a composite one, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

In these circumstances, the penalty cannot be sustained as it stands. Article I was the gravest of the charges, and a finding of corruption carries distinct seriousness and consequences. It would be unrealistic to presume that the Disciplinary Authority would have necessarily imposed the identical penalty if the charge of corruption had not formed a part of the case at all. The presence or absence of such a serious allegation has the potential to materially influence the assessment of penalty, and its exclusion from consideration could have resulted in a different outcome regarding the penalty imposed. Article II, as framed, does not survive either. What remains is Article III alone. While that charge is not insignificant, the penalty must be assessed independently of the discarded charges and not under their cumulative shadow.

This is, therefore, not a case warranting complete exoneration, nor one for outright dismissal of the petition. The appropriate course lies in recalibrating the outcome. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms: i. The finding against the Petitioner on Article I is set aside; ii. Article II is held not proved in the sense in which it was framed and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2026 at 22:56:20

Since remand is limited to the question of penalty, and not to the finding of Article III, no direction for reinstatement or back wages is warranted at this stage. These aspects shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.