Shri Ved Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1641 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1874/2011

Shri Ved Prakash                         ....Petitioner
                   Through     Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.


                   VERSUS

Union of India & Ors.                      .....Respondents
                 Through NEMO

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                              ORDER

% 22.03.2011

The petitioner, Ved Prakash, assails the order dated 23rd

March, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal,

for short) dismissing his OA No. 41/2009. In the said OA, the

petitioner had challenged the order imposing penalty of reduction in

pay in the same time scale by two steps for a period of two years with

cumulative effect, which was passed by the Disciplinary Authority and

confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that findings of

the enquiry officer are perverse and based on no evidence as the so

called tout Anil Yadav was not produced in the enquiry proceedings

and his statement was not recorded. He submits that the Tribunal has

erred in holding that the findings of the enquiry officer and the

appellate authority were not perverse or based on no material or

evidence.

3. It is well settled that Evidence Act is not applicable to

disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was working as an enquiry

cum reservation clerk at Ghaziabad Railway Reservation Centre. On

7th September, 2006, Anti Fraud Squad had conducted a surprise check

and apprehended one person Anil Yadav who was in possession of 25

tickets, which were issued by the petitioner. The tickets were seized.

Railway Protection Force had recorded statement of Anil Yadav who

had admitted the petitioner's involvement and had stated that he used

to pass on Rs.3/- per ticket to the petitioner i.e. the counter clerk. The

Tribunal also noticed that the requisition slips for issue of tickets were

in different names having different addresses but held that this was not

material, if the data regarding issue of 25 tickets was examined.

Reference in this regard can be made to the following details noticed by

the Tribunal:-

"It is proved beyond doubt that the following 25 reserved tickets were issued by CO (Ex D-2) :-

            Ticket Nos.            Total Tickets    time consumed from

            53022113 to 118               6         8:4 Hrs to 8:9 Hrs
            53022121                      1         8.13 Hrs
            53022123 to 37                15       8:15 Hrs to 8.34 Hrs.
            53022139 to 41                 3       8.38 Hrs to 8:41 Hrs.

                                       ----
         Total                        25 Tickets
                                      ----

4. Considering the entire material and evidence on record, the

Tribunal in paragraph 9 has held as under:-

"9. The Inquiry Officer's reports clearly bring out the fact that Mr. Anil Yadav was in possession of 25 tickets. Copy of those tickets have been part of the inquiry report. There is no dispute about this matter. There is also no dispute about the tickets having been issued from the counter of the Applicant. Period taken to issue the tickets have been counted by the Inquiry Authority in her analysis. Each of the tickets shows the date and time of issue. Therefore, the recovery of the tickets from one person and the same having been issued from the ticket counter, which is the Applicant's counter No. 545, has a direct linkage with the Applicant. The Inquiry has also brought out the fact that the requisition slips submitted for issuing all tickets in quick succession and in continuation seems to be of the same hand writing. Though, there is no forensic test of the handwriting, a plan visual check reveals that those were issued by one person. Who wrote the requisition slip is not the issue here. Be that as it may, it is sufficient for the Inquiry Authority to conclude that only one person has presented those requisition slips to get the tickets. It has also been recorded that through the transaction data of the shift of that particular day when the Applicant was working, it was found that there were 34 transactions in a space of 49 minutes and in the second lot the Applicant had done 29 transactions in approximately 251 minutes. This speaks volumes of the speed before and after the check. Therefore, the authorities concerned have come to the conclusion that recovery of the tickets from one person and the speed of the

transactions indicates the connivance of the Applicant with the person in possession of 25 tickets. The inquiry Authority has held the charge as proved to the extent that 25 tickets were issued in 25 minutes, out of which, 24 tickets were issued in 3 spells by the Applicant which were recovered from one Mr. Anil Yadav. With regard to the short cash of Rs.37/- there is no finding in the Inquiry Report. On the basis of the above findings of the Inquiry Authority, the punishment of reduction in pay in same time scale by 2 stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect and consequently on appeal, the same has been upheld and the appeal rejected."

5. In view of the findings recorded, we do not find that the

impugned orders are perverse or contrary to law. We do not see any

reason to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in

limine without any orders as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE March 22, 2011 kkb