UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM ADHAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 30.11.2012 passed in Original Application No.851 of 2006.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent alleging that while he was on sick leave on 21.8.2002, he was found in the booking office along with a Coolie named Bandhu for the purpose of selling fake tickets 31 in number from Lar Road to Mumbai. Thus, by this act, the respondent had violated the provisions of Rule 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servant Conduct (Rules) 1966. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and on the basis of the enquiry report, the Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 1.6.2004 removing the respondent from service. The respondent preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi. Further revision was preferred which was also rejected by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi by order dated 8.6.2005. The respondent is stated to have preferred a Special Appeal before the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur under Rule 24 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

(3.) Aggrieved by the various orders the respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad being O.A. No. 851 of 2006. The O.A. was filed, inter-alia, on the ground that there was no evidence that the respondent was found selling the alleged 31 fake tickets on 21.8.2002. It was further stated that the alleged 31 fake tickets were brought by Sri Bandhu, a Coolie and thrown through the window between the gap of the 'Tizori' and the counter in the dark. The case of the respondent also was that there was no allegation against him that the alleged fake tickets were recovered from his possession by the Vigilance Team which had conducted the raid nor was there any allegation that the tickets had been sold by the respondent to any passenger or to any decoy passenger set up by the Vigilance Team.