Sujan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 7 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition challenges the order dated 5.6.1997, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing OA. No.1388/97, seeking quashing of the order of his removal from service.

The petitioner was posted as a Coach Attendant in a first class coach in the train going through Delhi to Tundla on 5.1.1994. He was found to have allowed two passengers with second class tickets to travel in the first class, upon receiving Rs. 80/ as illegal gratification. This was detected in a vigilance check and he was charge sheeted on 27.10.1994, with the following charges:

(i) Allowed two second class ticket holders to travel in first class compartment of Train No.4084 on 5.1.1994 ex. Delhi to Tundla after taking a bribe of Rs. 80/

(ii) Failed to declare his private cash and refuse to show his cash in train on 5.1.1994 during vigilance check.

(iii) He did not cooperate during vigilance check and refused to sign on the joint inspection note in the train on 5.1.1994.

After issuance of charge sheet an enquiry was conducted, witnesses were examined and the Enquiry Officer held the charges to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority that is the Divisional Commercial Manager, who dismissed the appeal. Revision preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority was dismissed by the Revisional Authority, who affirmed the findings and the punishment imposed. The Central Administrative Tribunal, before whom the impugned order of removal from service was challenged, issued notice confined to the question of quantum of penalty imposed.

2. As noted the case of the Railway Authorities was that the petitioner, a Coach Attendant, accepted Rs. 80/ from two passengers and allowed them to travel in the first class coach while they were holding tickets of second class. The vigilance inspector had recorded the statement of the passengers, who stated that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 100/ but was paid Rs. 80/ for being permitted to travel in the first class coach. The vigilance inspector had also associated one Sh. S.P. Gautam, TTE, who happened to be traveling as a passenger in the said train in the investigation. The Enquiry Officer did not accept the version of the petitioner that he had accepted Rs. 80/ towards the difference in the fare and that he had tried to call the Ties from other coaches in the train to have the tickets converted from second class to first class and since the petitioner could not find the TTE, he had returned Rs. 80/ to the passengers at Aligarh junction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fervently urged before us that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as this was a case of no evidence. The eye witness, Sh. S.P. Gautam, TTE, who had been got associated by the vigilance inspector, while otherwise accepting the correctness of the statement made by the passenger, stated that the allegation of bribe was made by the passengers at the behest of the vigilance inspector, who had threatened the passengers, with arrest and criminal action, if they did not mention that the money was paid as bribe. Learned counsel further argued that in these facts where the eye witness was not supporting the version of the department on material facts, the imposition of penalty of removal from service was in any case, harsh and unconscionable. Learned counsel places reliance on B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Anr, .

4. We are of the view that the submission of the petitioner that this is a case of no evidence, is without merit. The statement of the passengers to the effect that the petitioner had asked for Rs.100/ for travelling in the first class and was given Rs.80/ belies the defense now being canvassed. The factum of payment of Rs. 80/ to the petitioner is accepted. It is not the function of the Coach Attendant to collect money from the passengers for getting the tickets changed or converted to a higher class. The Enquiry Officer and the Authorities have for good reasons, disbelieved the version of the petitioner that he had gone to call the Ties from other compartments of the train for conversion of tickets. Petitioner was unable to give the name or particulars of the Ties, whom he contacted, but had declined to come to the coach. The respondents in their affidavit had submitted that the passengers eventually had to pay Rs. 356/ towards the difference between first class and second class fare from New Delhi to Aligarh and penalty etc. vide receipt No. 251270 dated 5.1.1995. This would belie the petitioner's version of having accepted Rs. 80/ as the differential from the passengers. The Enquiry Officer as well as Appellate Authority did not find the statement of Sh. S.P. Gautam credible in supporting the petitioner since he did not at the time of recording of the statements of passenger or signing them, record his dissent or protest. In any case, punishment has been imposed after due consideration of the available evidence and providing the petitioner reasonable opportunity to defend himself at various stages. It is not the function of this Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision of the fact finding authorities. The Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts in this case. The Appellate Authority, which has coextensive powers to reappreciate evidence or the nature of punishment have both concurred. Not only this, the Revisional Authority as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal have affirmed the findings. Reference may usefully be made to the following observations of the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (Supra).

A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find this to be a case of no evidence or where the findings are perverse or where the punishment imposed is so harsh that having regard to the gravity of the offence or the attendant circumstances being such as would make this into an exceptional and rare case, calling for interference by this Court.

6. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.