UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-railway administration have filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.10.2012 passed in Original Application No. 780 of 2008.

(2.) The brief facts, as appearing from the records, are that the respondent was posted as Head Booking Clerk at Azamgarh. The charge against the respondent, as per the charge sheet filed as Annexure A-3 to the original application is that while posted at Ballia he issued two tickets one from Ballia station to Dalchhapra (distance 32 kms.) on 29.6.2002 the cost of which was Rs.8/- each and another ticket for Chhapara for a distance of 66 kms., the cost of which was Rs. 14/- each but instead he issued two tickets for Howrah station, distance 779 kms. costing Rs. 162/- each. The second charge against the respondent was that in 8 minutes he issued 72 tickets, at the rate of 9 tickets per minute and in five minutes he issued 46 tickets at the rate of 9.2 tickets per minute with the intention of committing fraud. The respondent was placed under suspension w.e.f. 3.1.2006 to 21.6.2006. Disciplinary proceedings were held against the respondent and the charges having been proved against him a penalty order was passed on 12.10.2006 whereby the respondent was removed from service. He preferred a departmental appeal, as provided under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 27.3.2008. At this point, it may be relevant to mention that earlier also an appellate order dated 26.2.2007 had been passed rejecting the appeal of the respondent which was challenged by the respondent by filing an Original Application no. 349 of 2007 and the appellate order dated 26.2.2007 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground of its being a non speaking order, hence the subsequent appellate order dated 27.3.2008. Aggrieved by these orders, the respondent filed the Original Application no. 780 of 2008. The grounds taken by the respondent before the Tribunal, inter-alia, were: that the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex-parte; that the enquiry was initiated at the instance of the Vigilance Department; and that the enquiry officer also belonged to the vigilance department, therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings were vitiated and stained by bias. A counter reply was filed by the petitioners-railway administration denying the allegations made in the original application.

(3.) The Tribunal upon a consideration of the pleadings and the documents on record has set aside the penalty order as well as the appellate order and has directed as under: