UNION OF INDIA Vs. GYAN CHAND CHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.25 of 1983 by which while affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.12.1982 passed in Special Civil Application No.101 of 1982 allowed the cross objections filed by the respondent-employee and set aside the order giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of minor punishment on two charges.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-employee Gyan Chand Chattar was appointed in the Western Railway as Shroff in the Department of Pay and Cash in the scale of Rs.260-400 w.e.f. 8.2.1971 vide official letter dated 8.2.1971. He was thereafter posted as Cashier in the year 1977 in the pay-scale of Rs.330-480. He was served a charge sheet dated 8.4.1980 containing 6 charges that he traveled in the train in First Class on 24.11.1979 though he was not entitled to travel in that class; refused to arrange payment of certain amount to the employees against bills dated 12.11.1979; 16.11.1979 and 21.11.1979; while on duty on 24.11.1979 travelling in 1st Class compartment of the Train, played cards with RPF Rakshaks; that on 24.11.1979 the train in which he was traveling was detained by the agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of their pay allowance, he acted extremely irresponsibly and made no attempt to convince them about his difficulties; refused to receive "Control Message"/"Memo" from the superior officer and wanted commission of 1% for payment of pay allowance to the employees.

(3.) BEING aggrieved the Union of India filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.25 of 1983 challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2002. However, the Division Bench allowed the counter objections filed by the respondent to the extent that the direction given by the learned Single Judge to impose minor penalty on charge numbers 4 and 5 was also set aside. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench directed that respondent would be entitled to get 50% of the back- wages with all consequential benefits including retrial benefits. Hence, this appeal.