1 wp2461.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2461 OF 2002
1. The Divisional Commercial Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur, District
Nagpur;
2. The Senior Divisional Commercial
Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur,
District - Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS
.. Versus ..
1. V.M. Saudagar,
Travelling Ticket Examiner (under
dismissal), Central Railway, Nagpur, Dead
R/o. Satguru Wadi, Juna Babhulkheda,
Ward No.17, Post Office : Bhagwan
Nagar, Nagpur, District Nagpur.
Legal Representatives of respondent No.1 :-
1-A Dipak S/o. Vasantrao Saudagar,
Aged about 25 years, Occ.
R/o. Sadguruwadi, Juna Babulkheda,
Ward No.17, Post Office : Bhagwan-
ghar Nagar, Distt. Nagpur.
1-B i) Smt. Sneha W/o. Chandrakant
Saudagar, Aged 35 yrs., Occ. Household,
1-B ii) Chintoo S/o. Chandrakant Saudagar
Aged about 13 yrs., Occ. Student.
1-B iii) Shubham S/o Chandrakant Saudagar
Aged about 10 yrs., Occ. Student
1-B iv) Shubhangi D/o Chandrakant Saudagar
Aged about 10 yrs, Occ. Student
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 :::
2 wp2461.02.odt
All R/o. Sadguru Wadi, Juna Babulkheda,
P.O. Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur, Minors (ii)
to (iv) represented by their mother the
natural guardian.
1-C Kamlesh S/o Vasantrao Saudagar,
Aged major, R/o. Sadguruwadi,
Juna Babulkheda, Ward No.17,
Post Office Bhagwanghar,
Nagpur.
1-D Sau. Durga Mangal Sasodkar,
Aged about 23 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Mohani Sagar Colony, Qtr. No.B-16,
Chhatri Road, Shivpuri (M.P.)
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1-A to 1-C.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : September 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) The respondent No.1 V.M. Saudagar, who was working as a Travelling Ticket Examiner in Central Railway, Nagpur, was on duty on 31.05.1988 on a Second Class Sleeper Coach in 31 Down Dadar-Nagpur Express, was dismissed from service by an order dated 07.06.1996, after ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 ::: 3 wp2461.02.odt finding him guilty of four charges levelled against him in Departmental Enquiry. This order was confirmed by the appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal on 30.07.1997. The respondent No.1 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 431/1997, which was allowed on 21.03.2002, setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits. The Department of Railway has preferred this writ petition.
2. The matter was admitted on 09.09.2002 granting ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of the petition. Against this interim order, SLP No.973/2003 was preferred, which was dismissed on 31.01.2003. The respondent No.1 expired during pendency of this petition and his legal heirs were brought on record as per the order dated 18.12.2007.
3. The charge No.1 was that the respondent No.1 while functioning as Travelling Ticket Examiner, Central Railway, Nagpur, demanded illegal gratification from three passengers while travelling in Second Class Sleeper Coach of 39-Down Dadar-Nagpur Express on 31.05.1988. An ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 ::: 4 wp2461.02.odt amount of Rs.25/- was demanded from Shri Hemant Kumar, Rs.20/- was demanded from Dinesh Choudhary, and Rs.5/- was demanded from Rajkumar Jaiswal for allotment of berths. The second charge was that the respondent No.1 was found in possession of excess amount to the tune of Rs.1254/-, excluding his own private cash, which was subsequently deposited by him in Railway Sundry Account on 31.05.1988. The third charge was that the respondent No.1 while functioning as such, failed to recover Rs.18/- as difference in fare for Ticket No.444750 on 31.05.1988. The fourth charge was that the respondent No.1 forged signature on Duty Card Pass No.030545, which was issued in his favour by the office Superintendent-I, Pass Section, DPO, Nagpur. It was alleged that the respondent No.1 exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty under Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
4. Before the Enquiry Officer, one Shri. N.C. Dhankode the then Senior Vigilance Inspector, entered the witness box and proved the Joint Surprise Check Report submitted on 31.05.1988 and confirmed that Exh.P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-7 are the complaints referred to by him. He ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 ::: 5 wp2461.02.odt identified the signatures of respondent No.1 on Exh.P-7, P-8 and P-9 as respondent No.1 signed the said documents before him which were referred to him in his statement dated 08.08.1988. Before the Enquiry Officer, the passenger Hemant Kumar was not examined, but the other passengers Dinesh Choudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal were examined. The Enquiry Officer records finding after taking into consideration the evidence of these two witnesses alongwith the documents placed on record and the evidence of Shri. N.C. Dhankode, that the charge of accepting illegal gratification has been proved.
5. The second charge of possessing excess amount to the tune of Rs.1254/- excluding his own private cash is held to be proved on the basis of evidence of one M.S. Joshi, CTI Central Railway, Wardha, whose statement was recorded by CBI at P-19 and also by one Shri A.B. Waikar, retired HBC Nagpur, in his statement at P-25. Relying upon the evidence of Shri N.C. Dhankode, it is held that non- collection of difference of Rs.18/- in the fare has also been proved. The Enquiry Officer further holds that respondent No.1 under his own signature without any authority extended the validity of Duty Card Pass No.030545 upto ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 ::: 6 wp2461.02.odt 31.03.1988 when it expired on 31.03.1986.
6. The Central Administrative Tribunal sets aside the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer of the charge of illegal gratification holding that one passenger Shri Hemant Kumar was not examined as witness in the Enquiry and the other witnesses examined namely Dinesh Coudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal have supported the case of respondent No.1. In our view, it was not necessary for the department to examine the passengers in Departmental Enquiry and non-examination of such passengers shall not vitiate the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The statements of all the passengers recorded on 31.05.1988 are placed on record and have been proved before the Enquiry Officer. The documents are contemporaneous in nature. The evidence of Dinesh Choudhary before the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that an amount of Rs.20/- was not refunded to him by the respondent No.1 though he assured to return it subsequently. The another witness Rajkumar Jaiswal has in fact gone ahead to tell that the sum of Rs.120/- was given to the respondent No.1 who issued receipt of Rs.45/- only and did not pay the remaining amount. The tribunal ought to have seen that the findings recorded by the Enquiry ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 ::: 7 wp2461.02.odt Officer in respect of the demand of illegal gratification are based on the evidence available on record. At any rate, it was a possible view of the matter which did not call for interference by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. In respect of second charge of possessing excess amount of Rs.1254/- by the respondent No.1, the tribunal holds that the reliance placed on Railway Board's letter dated 22.08.1997 was misplaced as there was no ceiling limit of carrying the cash existing on 31.05.1988 when the incident took place. The Enquiry Officer took into consideration the evidence of Mr. M.S. Joshi, CTI, Wardha Railway and retired HBC Shri A.B. Waikar confirming their statements at Exh.P-9 and P-25 that the amount was subsequently deposited by the respondent No.1 and the receipt was prepared at Exh.P-3 on 31.05.1988. The Enquiry Officer does not rely upon any such letter imposing this ceiling limit for possessing the private cash by TTE during the travel. The very object is to find out the unaccounted money possessed by an employee. It cannot be therefore, said that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was not based upon any evidence. At any rate, it was the possible view of the matter and there was no ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 ::: 8 wp2461.02.odt reason for the tribunal to interfere in it.
8. The third charge of failing to recover the difference of fare of Rs.18/- between the old and new rate of the ticket. The Enquiry Officer relied on the evidence of Shri N.C. Dhankode, Senior Vigilance Inspector. Though the third charge regarding forging the signatures for extending the validity of Card Pass No.030545 has not been proved, from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer it seems that the respondent No.1 without any authority under his signatures extended the validity of the Card Pass.
9. In our view, the tribunal was not correct in interfering the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges levelled against the respondent No.1, which are held to be proved. The view taken by the Enquiry Officer was a plausible view of the matter and it was not the matter of no evidence at all. We cannot therefore, sustain the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 ::: 9 wp2461.02.odt Tribunal dated 21.03.2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application filed by the respondent No.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
waghmare
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:55:33 :::