UNION OF INDIA Vs. S P GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India to challenge the order dated 29th May 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application bearing No.1571/2005 filed by the respond to challenge the orders of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, which eventually resulted in his compulsory retirement from service.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as a ticket collector in the 1965 with the railways and since 1984 he was working in the promoted post as head TTE. A memorandum dated 23rd of January 1995 was issued to the respondent proposing to hold an enquiry against him under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The gravamen of the charge against the respondent was that on 21st May 1994, while he was posted and working as TTE and manning the 2 tire AC coach of 3009UP, he was detected to have committed irregularities. It was stated that during the vigilance check one passenger, by the name of Dr P. Singh who was traveling from Bareilly to Dehradun was found to be occupying berth number 41 in the second AC coach. The charge against the respondent was that he had allowed the said passenger to travel in second AC coach without duly regularising the allotment of the said berth to him for, obviously, some consideration.

(3.) An enquiry was held by the enquiry officer into the charges who held that all the charges against the respondent stood proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and an order imposing penalty of removal from service was passed against the respondent on 28th May 1996. He preferred an appeal which was also rejected on 3rd September 1996. In the revision application preferred by the respondent, the divisional Railway Manager reduced the penalty to compulsory retirement by his order dated the 19th December 1996. That order was subjected to challenge in OA No. 81/1999. The tribunal allowed the said OA on 5th November 2000, on the ground that the penalty order had not been passed by the competent authority.