Bombay High Court
The Union Of India And Anr vs Manohar Nemaji Walchale And Anr on 6 June, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 Judg. wp 805.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.805 of 2003
1] The Union of India
through the General Manager
Central Railway, Mumbai
(Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal);
2] The Divisional Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur. .... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1] Manohar s/o Nemaji Walchale,
Aged- Adult, Station Superintendent,
Pandhurna Railway Station
(Central Railway), Pandhurna,
2] The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai,
Bench at Nagpur, Nagpur. .... Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Prashant H. Khobragade, Advocate holding for
Shri R.G. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioners.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
th
Dated : 06 June, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
Heard Shri Prashant Khobragade, the learned Advocate
2 Judg. wp 805.03.odt
holding for Shri R.G. Agrawal, Advocate appearing for the
petitioners. We have gone through the impugned order, the
documents placed on record and the grounds of challenge raised
in the petition.
2] The petition challenges the judgment and order dated
12-07-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at
Mumbai [for short, "the Tribunal"] in Original Application No.
2008 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has
set aside the order of recovery dated 11-02-2000 passed against
the respondent no.1 on account of pecuniary loss caused to the
railway due to undervaluation of the consignments. The
Tribunal has held that the order impugned was passed without
conducting any enquiry against the respondent no.1. The
recovery which was sought to be made from respondent no.1 is
of the deficit amount of Rs. 33,176/-.
3] The undisputed factual position is that the respondent
no.1 was working as a Station Superintendent at Pandhurna
Railway Station of the Central Railway in the month of January,
1990 and it was his duty to charge and collect the Parcel Way
Bills to Orange wagons booked at Pandhurna Railway Station to
3 Judg. wp 805.03.odt
Naya Azadpur Railway Station as prescribed in the instructions
of the petitioners. He charged the rate as was prescribed and
enforced as per the Notification prevailing prior to 29-03-1989.
The rate charged was of Rs.5,766/-. According to the petitioner
establishment the rate was revised by Notification dated
29-03-1989 and it was communicated to the respondent no.1 on
31-03-1989. The rate was revised to Rs.6,590/-. According to
the petitioner establishment the respondent no.1 could not have
charged the rate of Rs. 5,766/-. According to the petitioners the
respondent no.1 undervalued the consignment and after issuing
show cause notice dated 03-11-1999 and considering the reply
filed by the respondent no.1 on 12-11-1999, the order of
recovery was passed on 11-02-2000.
4] The Tribunal has relied upon the Railway Board's letter
dated 23-05-1975 which required the department to conduct an
enquiry before passing an order of recovery. The Tribunal holds
that no such enquiry was conducted. The ground of challenge
raised to this finding in the petition is that the said letter was
applicable only to the cases arising out of loss of consignment
i.e. non-delivery of goods and not in any other case. The
Tribunal has also relied upon Rule 6 relating to the penalties
4 Judg. wp 805.03.odt
under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1968.
5] Leaving apart the question of applicability of the Railway
Board's letter dated 23-05-1975 requiring an enquiry to be held
before passing of an order of recovery, the question is whether
under Rule 6 regarding the penalties an order of recovery could
have been made after giving a show cause notice to the
respondent no.1 in respect thereof. Rule 6(1) to the extent which
deals with imposition of minor penalties is concerned is
reproduced below :-
"R.6. Penalties.-(1) The following penalties
may, for good and sufficient reasons and as
hereinafter provided, be imposed on a railway
servant, namely:-
Minor Penalties:-
(i) Censure;
(ii)Withholding of his promotion for a specified
period;
(iii)Recovery from his pay of the whole or part
of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the
Government of Railway Administrative by
negligence or breach of orders;
(iii-a) Withholding of the privilege of passes or
P.T.Os or both;
5 Judg. wp 805.03.odt
(iv)Withholding of increments of pay for a
specified period with further directions as to
whether on the expiry of such period this
will or will not have the effect of postponing
the future increments of his pay.
..."
The said Rule 6(1)(iii) empowers the department to pass an
order of recovery on account of pecuniary loss caused to the
department due to act of any loss, negligence or breach of orders
if it finds that there are good and sufficient reasons for imposing
such penalty.
6] It was the stand taken by the respondent no.1 in response
to the show cause notice that he received a Notification dated
29-03-1989 revising the rates from Rs. 5,766/- to Rs. 6,590/- on
24-02-1990 and prior to it the consignments in question were
booked in the month of January 1990. We have gone through
the order dated 11-02-2000 passed by the petitioner imposing
the minor penalty of recovery of amount of pecuniary loss
caused to the department. Except a bare statement that the order
dated 29-03-1989 was acknowledged on 31-03-1989 by the
respondent no.1 there is nothing produced on record to
6 Judg. wp 805.03.odt
substantiate such finding. Apart from this there is no finding of
negligence recorded in the order impugned dated 11-02-2000.
In view of this, we do not find that the judgment and order
delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from
any infirmity.
7] The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
