Raju Batham vs Union Of India And Ors

Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member A

The applicant has filed this Original Application (in short O.A.) under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the final impugned order dated 3.8.2010 passed by respondent no.7 Annexure A-29 and consequently also set-aside impugned order dated 10.3.2008 Annexure A-26 and 29.12.2009 Annexure A-19 passed by the respondent no.5 and consequently set-aside the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2008 Annexure A-6 and order of appointment of enquiry officer from Vigilance Annexure A-11 and vitiated enquiry report Annexure-15 thereafter the applicant be posted on the post of Assistant Chief Ticket Inspector West Central Railway, Itarsi with immediate effect and with all consequential benefits.

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the period from date of compulsory retirement to the date of reduction to the lowest post as TC vide impugned order Annexure A-29 as in service with all service benefits.

(iii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to declare the intervening period from date of compulsory retirement to the date of impugned order Annexure A-29 as period of duty for all purposes.

(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case along with cost of this Original Application in favour of the applicant.”

In brief, the case of the applicant is that a decoy check was conducted by the Vigilance Branch of West Central Railway, Jabalpur. The applicant demanded and accepted Rs. 250/- from two passengers holding II Mail/Express tickets from Bhopal to Sihora road while he was performing the duty on 5.2.2008 in 8233 Dn. Express train and provided them berths Nos. 58 and 59 in Sleeper Coach no.9. The applicant issued EFT from Rs. 170 only and kept Rs. 80/- with him as illegal money, which was recovered by the vigilance team on the spot from his EFT book. The applicant has failed to declare his private cash before appearing on duty on 5.2.2008 and during vigilance check, an amount of Rs. 190/- was found in his person, which was deposited under EFT No. 463713 on 6.2.2008 as Misc. cash/income. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant. A chargesheet dated 29.4.2008 was issued to the applicant requiring him to submit his reply. An Inquiry Officer was also appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the applicant. It is alleged in the O.A. that without following the statutory provisions of Rule 9(9) (a)(i) of D&A Rules read with Railway Board’s order dated 6.2.2009, the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority contrary to the rules. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings were concluded and Inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority by proving the charges leveled against him. Upon receipt of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the applicant along with report of Inquiry Officer requiring him to furnish his reply vide order dated 27.5.2009, to which the applicant submitted his reply on 14.7.2009 with a prayer to exonerate him from the charges leveled against him. According to the applicant, without considering his representation in a proper manner, the disciplinary authority has passed an order of punishment whereby the applicant was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 28/29.12.2009. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 4.1.2010, which was rejected vide order dated 10.3.2010. Finding no option, the applicant filed a Revision Petition before the Revisionary authority i.e. Chief Commercial Manager, W.C.R., Jabalpur on 12.3.2010. When the Revision Petition of the applicant was not decided for quite some time, he approached to this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 165 of 2010 assailing the orders of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authorities including chargesheet. While entertaining the said Original Application, this Tribunal issued notice to the respondents by giving liberty to the respondents to decide the Revision Petition of the applicant by passing appropriate orders.

It is averred in the O.A. that the respondents filed Reply on 6.8.2010 stating therein that the Revisionary authority has modified the order of compulsory retirement of the applicant by awarding the punishment of reduction to lowest stage of TC vide order dated 3.8.2010. Thereafter, this Tribunal disposed of the aforementioned O.A. by giving liberty to the applicant to take appropriate steps accordingly if he is still aggrieved. Hence, this O.A.

Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed Reply wherein they have stated that on the basis of source information that the TC staff working on the “Tatkal reservation Counter” at Bhopal is collecting illegal money from the passengers, a decoy check was conducted by the Vigilance Branch of the WCR on 5/6.2.2008 at Bhopal Station. It was organized by the Vigilance team as per procedure and guidelines of Indian Railways Vigilance Manual. The decoy passenger contacted the applicant in Room no.8 and requested for two berths in IInd Sleeper upto Sihora road. To this, the applicant agreed to allot two berths on payment of Rs. 250/- by clearly demanding Rs. 250/- and prepared a receipt for sleeper class for 170/- and allotted the berths. The applicant accepted Rs. 250/- and kept the full amount in the EFT book. The respondents also stated in their Reply that as per pre-arranged check the independent witness gave signals to the vigilance team, who immediately appeared on the spot and caught red handed the applicant by recovering Rs. 250/-. The applicant in his statement dated 6.2.2008 admitted that he had not declared the private cash before appearing on duty with further admission that in vigilance check, an amount of Rs. 95/- was found excess in his Government cash and that excess amount was collected by him from the passengers. Thereafter, disciplinary authority ordered for regular enquiry in the matter under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by appointing Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer. The respondents also stated that after detailed enquiry, all the charges leveled against the applicant were found proved. On accepting the report of Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed an order of compulsory retirement of the applicant vide order dated 28/29.12.2009. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the applicant was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.3.2010 by affirming the order of disciplinary authority. However, on revision petition, the revisionary authority, after taking a lenient view, modified the punishment of compulsory retirement to the reduction of lowest post of TC vide order dated 3.8.2010. In conclusion, the respondents have stated that the O.A. filed by the applicant has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

The applicant has also filed Rejoinder to the Reply filed by the respondents negating the contentions of the respondents made in the Reply by reiterating the averments as already advanced in the Original Application and nothing new has been added in the Rejoinder.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the pleadings available on record.

The moot question involved in this Original Application is whether this Tribunal can go into the quantum of punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority, confirmed by the appellate authority and modified by Revisionary authority or not? The facts of the case are not in dispute. It is trite principle of law that Courts/Tribunals cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority/appellate authority or revisionary authority, as the case may be, unless and until there is discrepancies/shortcomings in the decision making process. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to point out any irregularity or deficiency in the decision making process, which warrants interference of this Tribunal. Apart from that, initially the applicant was compulsorily retired from service by the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority. On Revision Petition, the punishment was modified by the Revisionary authority by reducing the pay of the applicant to lowest post of TC vide order dated 3.8.2010 and as such it cannot be said that the punishment so awarded by the Revisionary authority is harsh and is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges leveled against him. More-over, the order so passed by the Revisionary authority is a reasoned and speaking order as the Revisionary Authority passed the order after considering all the points raised by the applicant in his Revision petition and also keeping in mind the gravity of the charges leveled against him and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Revisionary authority. It is also noticed that the Revisionary authority has already taken a lenient view after considering the facts and circumstances of the case by modifying the punishment of compulsory retirement into reduction to lowest post of TC vide order dated 3.8.2010, hence no interference is called for.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his claim:-

(i) Union of India & Others Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon reported in 2009(2) SRJ 336.

(ii) Moni Shanker Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2008(3) SC 325.

(iii) Sanjay Sharma Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway & Others decided by Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2090 of 2007

(iv) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570.

(v) Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in O.A. No. 326 of 2009 on 29.2.2012.

(vi) H.K. Kamble Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2030 of 2007 on 15.11.2010.

(vii) K. Santheesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 850 of 2002 decided on 17.9.2009.

We have carefully gone through the decisions as relied upon by the applicant’s counsel in support of his claim. But none of them would get any help to the applicant as facts and circumstances of the cited case with that of the instant case are on different footing and as such the same are distinguishable.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. The O.A. has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs