A SUBRAMANIAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.354 of 2007, whereby the said application was disposed of in favour of the respondents herein.

(2.) The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in controversy that the petitioner one A.Subramaniam was served with a charge memo on 14.5.2004 under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1968. The gist of the charge memo was that, on the date when one M.A.S.Hussain, Travelling Ticket Examiner, Southern Railway who was rosted to work on the Train No.6715 on 28.3.2003 in Rameswaran - Coimbatore Section could not report to work in view of his sickness, the applicant/petitioner herein was assigned the work on the Train No.6716 Rameswaram Coimbatore in the place of Mr.Hussain. Accordingly, the petitioner performed his duty in the place of Mr.Hussain on that date. While he was performing his duty on 28/29.8.2003, he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.230/- from a Constable P.R. Sushil Kumar for allotting berth Nos.14 and 15 in S3 Coach but he had issued receipt only for Rs.132/- and pocketed the rest. Following the same, there was a complaint and a charge memo was issued. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquiry the same. Then, there was change of Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, on the side of the Department, P.W.1 was examined in-chief and he was also cross-examined in-part. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has made an application in O.A.No.354 of 2007 before the Tribunal in order to quash the charge memo. An opportunity was given to the Department to putforth its counter. The Tribunal, on enquiry, found that the application does not carry any merits whatsoever and disposed of the said application in favour of the respondents. Under such circumstances, the writ petition has arisen.

(3.) Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would submit that it was a case where a Constable who was working in the Vigilance Department was employed for the purpose of trapping and this was also the case of the respondents that he was employed for the purpose of trap. As per the charge memo there was demand and acceptance of Rs.230/- from the said constable for allotting the berths but a receipt was given only for Rs.132/- and the balance of Rs.98/- was pocketed by the petitioner. So long as it was the case of trap, the procedural formalities should have been followed. When there is a trap by the Vigilance Wing of Southern Railways, certain procedural formalities are mandatory, which has to be followed and so long as that it is not followed, the charge memo has to be quashed. The learned counsel took the Court to the Rulings of the Apex Court and submitted that the charge memo should have been quashed. On the contrary, the Tribunal has taken an erroneous view.