PRATAP SINGH Vs. NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Pratap Singh, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the Award dated 24 th August, 2006, whereby the action of the respondent, Northern Railway, terminating the petitioner's service was upheld.

(2.) The petitioner had been working as a clerk under Signal Inspector (D) Laskar of Moradabad division of the respondent since 25 th December, 1986. One Ram Prakash, who was working as Khalasi in the said division, wanted to take a loan. He therefore gave a loan form to the petitioner for filing it up, and for verifying the service particulars. The petitioner allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 50 from Ram Prakash for filling up and forwarding that loan form. Ram Prakash reported the matter to the CBI, following which the CBI laid a trap on 3 rd October, 1988. On that day, Ram Prakash gave the bribe money to the petitioner and then gave a signal to the CBI party. The CBI party then raided and recovered the bribe money from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was, thereafter, served with a charge sheet dated 3 rd March, 1989, wherein it was alleged that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 50/- from Ram Prakash. A Departmental Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner had been proved. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of removal from service vide order dated 17 th June, 1992. The petitioner appealed against the said order, but his appeal was rejected by order dated 16 th November, 1994.

(3.) Before the Labour Court, the petitioner's case, inter alia, was that the Enquiry Officer had conducted his proceedings in breach of the principles of natural justice by not recording the reasons for his findings. It was also his case that it was not his duty to fill in the loan application form of the said Ram Prakash because he was only a clerk; and that he did not have the power to sanction the alleged loan. Significantly, he also contended that the order punishing him, which was passed on 17 th June, 1992, is based on extraneous matters, because his past record was also taken into account while imposing punishment. According to him, if the Disciplinary Authority intended to also consider his previous service record while deciding the question of punishment, it ought to have afforded him adequate opportunity to defend himself on that aspect of the matter also. Since this was not done, the punishment awarded was bad in law. He also contended that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the extreme punishment of removal from service.