UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment/order dated 23rd October, 2007 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi in OA No. 257/2007 by which the Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed the orders dated 10th January, 2006 passed by the Divisional Traffic manager, Northern Railway DTM (NR) and 28th June, 2006 passed by the Senior divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway. By the impugned order, the pay of the respondent had been reduced from Rs. 6350/- (in the grade of Rs. 5000-8000) to Rs. 4000/- (in the grade of Rs. 4000-6000) for a period of one year with cumulative effect and fixed at Rs. 4000/ -.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-UOI submitted that the tribunal erred in upsetting the findings of facts and re-appreciating the evidence with regard to the findings reached by the Inquiry Officer and the appellate Authority. In the instant case, on a raid conducted by the Vigilance team on 8th May, 2004, Rs. 211/- excess Government cash was found in possession of the respondent. Respondent s explanation before the Inquiry Officer was that a passenger had desired to purchase two tickets for Vardhman station and had paid the charges therefor. Before he could issue second ticket to the passenger, the passenger left the counter and did not collect the ticket leaving a surplus of Rs. 211/- with him. This stand of the respondent has been accepted by the Tribunal as a plausible and bonafide one. Besides, he had duly informed the Vigilance team that he had to issue one ticket to a passenger for Vardhaman station for which he had received Rs. 211/ -. It is the respondent s case that a detailed defence note submitted by him was not considered by the Authorities. Respondent s case is that he waited for the passenger till the train departed. However, this plea was not accepted. It was the respondent s case that the inquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority had ignored that there was no attempt to keep any cash separately or to conceal it, rather the respondent informed the Vigilance team at the first opportunity. Further, he could not inform his superior who was located at a different site. Moreover, the inquiry Officer had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that since one ticket could be issued for four passengers, there was no occasion for the respondent to issue more than one ticket for two passengers.

(3.) THE above clearly ignored the practice as pointed out by the respondent that heavy rush resulted in the inability to accommodate all the passengers, therefore, generally separate tickets were being issued for each passenger so that in case of rush at least the passenger who could be accommodated could travel. Joint tickets were issued when passengers wanted to travel together.