Bombay High Court
P.B. Jambhulkar vs Union Of India Thr. General ... on 18 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-5228-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5228/2013
P. B. Jambhulkar,
Aged about : 45 years,
Occ. Traveling Ticket Examiner,
R/o Plot No.666, Model Town,
Indora Chowk, Jaripatka,
Kamptee Road, Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Union of India,
Through General Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, DRM's Office,
Kingsway, Nagpur-01. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anil Bambal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Khobragade, Advocate H/f Shri R. G. Agrawal, Advocate
for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
18/07/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 7 th May, 2010 dismissing
the original application filed by the petitioner.
2 J-WP-5228-13.odt
The petitioner was working as a Ticket Collector with
the Divisional Railways at Nagpur on 11/06/1997, when a Vigilance
Squad arranged a trap at the gate of the Railway Station at Nagpur
where the petitioner was posted to collect the tickets from the
passengers who were going out of the railway station. It is the case of
the respondents that the petitioner was caught while taking a bribe of
Rs.60/- from three passengers that had travelled without ticket.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner was falsely implicated as
there was quarrel between the petitioner and the Commercial Inspector.
Since the reply of the petitioner did not find favour with the
respondents - railways, an Enquiry Committee was constituted and a
Departmental Enquiry was held against the petitioner. It was found in
the enquiry that on the say of petitioner who was the Ticket Collector at
the relevant time, one Mr.Sarvariya, who was also working with the
railways had collected the amount of Rs.60/- from three passengers that
had travelled without ticket and they were permitted to cross the gate.
Since the charge levelled against the petitioner of accepting the amount
of Rs.60/- through Sarvariya who was a Volunteer Ticket Collector was
proved, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner filed a
departmental appeal, which was partly allowed. In the departmental
appeal, punishment of removal of the petitioner from service was set
aside and a lesser punishment of reduction in the pay scale of the
petitioner by four stages with cumulative effect was passed. Being
3 J-WP-5228-13.odt
aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed
the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The
Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application filed
by the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal is challenged by the
petitioner in the instant petition.
Shri Bambal, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the original
application filed by the petitioner. It is stated that according to the
charge levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner had accepted the
bribe of Rs.60/- from three passengers that were travelling without
ticket and had permitted them to cross the gate when he was posted as
a Ticket Collector, but the said charge against the petitioner was not
proved, inasmuch as it was found in the enquiry that the amount of
Rs.60/- was received by Mr.Sarvariya from the three passengers. It is
submitted that when the charge levelled against the petitioner was not
proved, a harsh punishment of reduction in the pay scale of the
petitioner by four stages should not have been passed. It is submitted
that in the circumstances of the case, the order imposing the penalty on
the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed
the prayer made in the petition. It is submitted that by taking a
humanitarian view in the matter, the Appellate Authority had reduced
the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service and a lesser
4 J-WP-5228-13.odt
punishment of reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner by four stages
with cumulative effect was passed. It is submitted that the charge
levelled against the petitioner was duly proved as the three passengers
were acquainted with the petitioner and it is only on the say of the
petitioner that Mr.Sarvariya had accepted the amount. In the
circumstances of the case, the learned counsel sought for the dismissal
of the writ petition.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the order of the Tribunal and the documents annexed to the
petition, specially the enquiry report, we find that there is no scope for
interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction. The charge levelled against the petitioner that he had
accepted the amount of Rs.60/- from three passengers as illegal
gratification and had permitted them to cross the gate when they had
travelled without ticket was proved. Though it was found that the
amount was not paid by the passengers to the petitioner directly, it was
found that the said amount was paid to Mr.Sarvariya who was a
Volunteer Ticket Collector, on the say of the petitioner. Since the three
passengers were acquainted with the petitioner and since the petitioner
was posted as a Ticket Collector on the gate, the Enquiry Officer arrived
at a finding on the basis of the evidence that the petitioner was guilty of
the charge levelled against him. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal
over the findings of the Enquiry Officer. We do not find that the enquiry
5 J-WP-5228-13.odt
is vitiated on any count. We also do not find that the punishment
inflicted on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the act of
misconduct proved against the petitioner. In fact, the Appellate
Authority by taking a lenient view in the matter has reduced the
punishment of removal of the petitioner from service to the punishment
of reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner by four stages. The
petitioner ought to have been happy with the lesser punishment
imposed upon the petitioner by the Appellate Authority. There is no
fault in the order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal so
as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
