Union Of India & Anr. vs K.S. Parmar
2011 Latest Caselaw 2937 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3850/2011


Union of India & Anr.                    ...Petitioners
                 Through       Mr. R.L. Dhawan, Advocate.


                  VERSUS

K.S. Parmar                                 .....Respondent
                  Through

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

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 ?

                              ORDER

%                             31.05.2011

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

In the present writ petition, the assail is to the order dated 3rd

February, 2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi (tribunal, for short) allowing O.A. No. 2201/2010,

filed by the respondent. Tribunal has quashed the order dated 12th

January, 2009 passed by the revisionary authority enhancing the

punishment to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefit and

restored the original penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, and

confirmed by the appellate authority, of reversion to grade of Rs.3200-

4900 and fixing the pay of the respondent at Rs.3200/- for a period of

three years with cumulative effect.

2. The respondent, K.S. Parmar, was proceeded departmentally and

the aforesaid punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority

vide order dated 21st November, 2006 and confirmed by the appellate

authority vide order dated 7th April, 2007. The respondent thereafter

filed a revision petition hoping for reduction in penalty but the

revisionary authority vide order dated 12th January, 2009, enhanced the

punishment to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits.

3. The respondent was working as a Head-clerk at Belan Ganj, Agra

under North Central Railway. A vigilance check was organized on 27th

November, 2003 and thereafter a chargesheet was issued on 26th

February, 2004 alleging that the respondent had demanded and

accepted Rs.10/- over and above the actual fare from a passenger. The

enquiry officer in his report partly upheld the said charge. He held that

the demand was not proved but the respondent had retained the said

amount of Rs.10/- by overcharging for personal gain. The case of the

petitioner was that the decoy passenger had purchased a ticket for

Rs.140/- and had paid Rs.150/-. The respondent had set apart the extra

Rupees 10 note and this was not refunded. The case, in defence, put up

by the respondent was that before he could take action to return

Rs.10/-, the passenger had left and the vigilance staff had closed the

window. The respondent had also relied upon the cash check memo

prepared contemporaneously at that time as per which only Rs.4/- was

found to be in excess in cash and the balance amount had tallied. The

disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded in the inquiry

report that the respondent had acted malafidely in not returning

Rs.10/- and accordingly awarded aforesaid punishment of reversion to

grade of Rs.3200-4900 and fixing the pay of the respondent at

Rs.3200/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The

Appellate Authority had upheld the said punishment.

4. The revisionary authority rejected the argument of the

respondent that the passenger had left the counter before he could

return Rs.10/-, holding, inter-alia, that the same should have been

returned along with the ticket itself. It was observed that a stern view

was required to be taken in the matter.

5. The tribunal examined the said aspect and held that under

Section 25(2) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the General

Manager could suo motu enhance the punishment within six months.

In the present case, the revisionary authority had not exercised the suo

motu power within six months. Enhancement of punishment in the

present case was on the revision filed by the respondent. It was

noticed that the revisionary authority had not dealt with the contention

of the respondent that only Rs.4/- was found to be in excess after

calculating the cash available at the counter. What is also noticeable is

the fact that the revisionary authority, in his order, has observed that

the enquiry officer had given a finding that alleged demand by the

respondent was not proved but the said finding was diluted by the

revisionary authority observing that this did not effect the gravity of the

misconduct. The tribunal observed that the penalty imposed by the

disciplinary authority was adequate and enhancement was grossly

disproportionate. It may be again noted that the inquiry officer has held

that the charge of demand of Rs.10/- was not proved and the said

finding was not disturbed but accepted by the Disciplinary Authority,

Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we do not see any reason to

interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is thus

dismissed. In the facts of the case, there will be no orders as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE May 31, 2011 Kkb/NA