UNION OF INDIA Vs. SULEKH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India is aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2008 passed in OA No. 2162/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ,,Tribunal) by which the respondents said original application was allowed and the impugned order of penalty of reduction of pay for a period of six years was set aside. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner was also directed to restore the pay of the respondent in the original grade with all consequential benefits within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent was working as a Head Booking Clerk in the Northern Railways. He was stationed at Panipat, Haryana. On 29.9.2004, a vigilance raid was conducted and a decoy customer Som Pal proceeded to the counter where the respondent was booking tickets. THE decoy customer asked for two railway tickets for a journey from Panipat to Darbhanga in Bihar. THE respondent stated that the cost of the tickets would be Rs.470/-. THEreupon, the decoy customer handed over a government currency note of Rs.500/- denomination to the respondent. After the tickets were printed, they were handed back to the decoy customer along with a sum of Rs.30/-. THE decoy customer then left the counter. THEreafter, the cash available with the respondent was checked by the vigilance team and it was found that there was a shortfall of Rs.101/- in government cash and a shortfall in private cash of Rs.50/-.

(3.) WE shall consider, first of all, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of the first charge. According to the Tribunal, the findings recorded in the enquiry report as well as by the Disciplinary Authority and other authorities below were merely on the basis of suspicion and were, therefore, perverse without any evidence. In such a case, according to the Tribunal, interference was called for. WE may point out that the present case is not one of "no evidence". It is a case where there is evidence that the incident with regard to the purchase of the tickets happened in the manner indicated in the charge memo. First of all, there is evidence of the decoy passenger (Som Pal) who appeared as PW1 and supported the stand of the petitioner. He clearly stated that he had asked for tickets from Panipat to Darbhanga, Bihar and that the respondent had informed that it would cost him Rs.470/- . When the tickets were prepared, the same were handed back to the decoy passenger along with a sum of Rs.30/- only. Although, the tickets were actually for Rs.430/-, the respondent returned only the said sum of Rs.30/-, implying thereby, that he had pocketed a sum of Rs.40/-.