S STALIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 28.03.2013, passed in O.A. No. 894 of 2010, by the Central Administrative Tribunal. While the petitioner was working as a Train Examiner, he was issued with a charge memorandum, dated 15.06.2005, stating that he had forged the signature of one A. Aruldoss in the surety column of the loan application of one L. John Bastin, dated 03.04.2002, submitted to the Southern Railway Employees' Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Trichy. The said A. Aruldoss suspected two persons viz., G. Vijayakumar and the petitioner. The petitioner initially denied the charge. After conducting enquiry, a report was submitted on 20.02.2006 holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. The disciplinary authority, by the proceedings dated 18.10.2006, imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 04.12.2007. The review petition filed before the first respondent was also dismissed on 18.03.2008.

(2.) The petitioner had challenged the above said orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 894 of 2010, contending that the transaction in question pertains to the affairs of the society, which is an independent entity, and the alleged act of forgery relates to one of its loan transactions, and therefore, the same could not be a subject matter of charge, and that no criminal case was initiated against any one for the alleged forgery, by the society and that based on suspicion only, the charge was held to be proved and the order of 'removal from service' was passed on 18.10.2006. The Tribunal, after considering the entire facts, on merits, dismissed the Original Application by holding that the petitioner initially denied and subsequently admitted the commission of forgery and the petitioner, being a Railway servant, is bound to maintain the absolute integrity and he cannot indulge in acts of misconduct, misbehaviour and acts unbecoming of a Railway servant, which is contemplated in the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised before the Tribunal and contended that the petitioner, having not violated any of the circulars/Rules of the Railways, cannot be proceeded with the charge. Rule 3 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, clearly states that every railway servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing, which is unbecoming of a railway servant. Committing forgery, i.e., signing the signature of another person is a serious delinquency by a Railway servant and the petitioner admitted the said fact, which was also found by forensic department. The petitioner was also shown mercy by paying 40% of the pension and gratuity as compassionate allowances, even after removal from services. If the contention of the petitioner, as argued by the learned counsel, is accepted, it will have disastrous effect, i.e. a Government/Railway servant can commit any act of moral turpitude and plead that the said act was committed not during the discharge of duty. If a person commits act of offence involving moral turpitude, he is to be treated as unbecoming of a Government/Railway servant. In such view of the matter, we are unable to take any view than the one taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.