Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Sh. Mithlesh Kumar on 5 September, 2008
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1753/2008
Reserved on: 5th August, 2008
% Date of Decision: 5th September, 2008
Union of India
Through
1. The General Manager
Northern Railway
Baroda House
New Delhi
2. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager
Northern Railway
Divisional Office
New Delhi
3. The Divisional Traffic Manager
Northern Railway
DRM's Office
State Entry Road
New Delhi ...Petitioners
Through : Mr.T. Mahipal, Adv.
Versus
Sh. Mithlesh Kumar
S/o Sh. M.P. Verma
Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk
CTE Office/DRM Office
Northern Railway. ...Respondent
Through : Ms. Meenu Mainee, Adv.
WP(C)No.1753/2008 Page 1 of 6
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
J.R. MIDHA, J.
The Petitioner has assailed the order dated 14th September, 2007
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the
Tribunal has quashed the order of major penalty of reduction of pay of
the Respondent by two stages for a period of three years with cumulative
effect.
The Petitioner issued Memorandum dated 6th August, 1988 to
the Respondent, who was working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk,
on the allegation that he issued 21 reserved tickets to one person, named
Harish Singh Rawat, employee of Jyoti Travels, Wazirpura, Delhi on
30.5.1997. The second charge was that he issued 173 tickets against 145
requisition slips on the same date.
The Inquiry Officer absolved the Respondent in respect of
charge No.2. With respect to charge No.1, the Enquiry Officer held the
same to be partly proved to the extent that the Respondent generated 21
PNRs continuously. However, the Enquiry Officer recorded in his
findings that more than one PNR could have been generated if there was
no rush on the Counter during that period. The Enquiry Officer further
recorded that the Vigilance Team had not received any complaint from
any passenger that the Respondent had accepted more than one
requisition form from one person. It was further recorded that the
Respondent was not examined by the Vigilance Team during
investigation. There was no oral evidence to prove that the Respondent
had accepted more than one form from one person. The Vigilance Team
had also not enquired whether there was any queue/waiting at the
relevant time. The Enquiry Officer gave a clear finding that there was
no positive evidence to record that the Respondent had taken more than
one requisition form from one person when other persons were in queue.
The relevant portion of the report of the Enquiry Officer is reproduced
below:-
"In view of the discussion above and the
document produced in the Enquiry shows that 21
PNR's which were recovered from Sh. Rawat were
generated by the C.O. in continuation from the
period 17.51 to 18.06 hrs. and (14 PNR) and 19.22
hrs, 19.26 hrs (7 PNR's) the possibility cannot be
ruled out that these PNR's generated by accepting
more than one requisition from one person at a
time which may be due to no rush on the counter
during this period as vigilance team has not
received any complaint from any passenger that
the C.O. has accepted more than one requisition
form one person. Moreover, the C.O. was not
examined by the vigilance inspector during
investigation and asked how he generated 21 PNR
to one person as stated by Shri Rawat in his
statement that he himself taken 21 PNR's from
counter no.128 which was manned by the C.O.
There is no oral evidence on record to prove that
the C.O. accepted more than one form from one
person but the DTC summary (Ex. P- 3) shows that
the tickets recovered from Shri Rawat issued in
continuity on the counter of the C.O., which may
be due to no rush on the counter and person have
produced his requisition one by one due to no
passenger on the counter. Moreover, the vigilance
team has not taken queue position and recorded
statement of any passenger stating the queue at the
time of check at 19.30 hrs. that the C.O. had taken
more than one from i.e., 7 requisition forms from
one passengers at 19.22 hrs. to 19.28 hrs. for
preparation of 7 tickets Ex. P-1(i) to Ex.P - 1
(viii), which could delay in preparation it is not
possible to prepare seven tickets & 15 tickets at a
time of one passenger on separate requisition
passengers in case of other passengers standing in
queue.
In view of the discussion above, there is no
positive evidence on record that the C.O. had taken
more than one requisition form from one person
when the other persons were in queue but the C.O.
cannot escape from the responsibility that he
generated PNR continuously against the tickets
found with Shri Rawat. Hence, the charge is partly
proved."
The effect of the aforesaid findings is that the charge against the
Respondent was not proved. However, it is surprising that the Enquiry
Officer, after recording the above findings, concluded that the charge
was partly proved. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority also did not
apply its mind on the aforesaid findings of the Enquiry Officer and
imposed major penalty on the Respondent in a mechanical manner.
We are of the view that the charge against the Respondent was
not proved. The Enquiry Officer has given clear finding in favour of the
Respondent. The Enquiry Officer has clearly recorded in his findings
that there has been no evidence as to the position of the queue or rush at
the counter and there had been no complaint from any passenger that the
Respondent had accepted more than one requisition form from one
person.
The punishment imposed on the Respondent has been rightly
quashed by the learned Tribunal. This is not a fit case for interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition.
(J.R. MIDHA)
JUDGE
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
JUDGE
September 5, 2008
s.pal
