UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHAKRADHAR MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition by the North Eastern Railway Administration challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.11.2012 passed in Original Application No. 216 of 2011.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent on the fateful day on 14.8.2004 was functioning as a Booking Clerk in the Kaptanganj Railway Station. Certain Vigilance Authorities approached him disclosed their identity and alleged that he had demanded and accepted extra money through one Sri Ram Dawan, Khalasi, working in that Railway Station from one Sri Cholai, who was a Vigilance Khalasi deployed as a decoy customer on verification of the cash position an amount of Rs. 254/- was found in excess. The respondent tried to explain the difference by stating that the said amount was the sale proceeds of sale of 37 tickets for Bagha Railway Station and this fact is also reflected in the Daily Transaction Cash book. The case further was that the the decoy Vigilance Customer, Sri Cholai had approached Ram Dawan, Khalasi and inquired about the tariff for booking a motorcycle and he was informed that the actual tariff was Rs. 150/- but extra amount was demanded by Ram Dawan which was paid by Cholai to Ram Dawan. Ram Dawan then is supposed to have given the said Rs. 150/- to the respondent for which the respondent had also issued necessary receipt. This payment was in 50 Rs. notes which was marked currency and which was recovered from the respondent.

(3.) The departmental enquiry was held against the respondent and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer an order of compulsory retirement dated 20.6.2006 was passed against the respondent. The respondent preferred an appeal which was rejected by the order dated 9.4.2007. Against the appellate order the respondent has also preferred a revision as provided under the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an Original Application No. 1330 of 2010 which was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the Revisional Authority to dispose of the pending revision of the respondent. When the revision petition was dismissed the respondent filed the Original Application No. 216 of 2011 seeking quashing of the order of compulsory retirement dated 20.6.2006 and the appellate order 9.4.2007 with a further prayer for a direction to the respondent to reinstate him in service on the post of Booking Clerk with entire arrears of salary, seniority etc. and other consequential benefits.