P. B. JAMBHULKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 7th May, 2010 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a Ticket Collector with the Divisional Railways at Nagpur on 11/06/1997, when a Vigilance Squad arranged a trap at the gate of the Railway Station at Nagpur where the petitioner was posted to collect the tickets from the passengers who were going out of the railway station. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was caught while taking a bribe of Rs.60/- from three passengers that had travelled without ticket. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was falsely implicated as there was quarrel between the petitioner and the Commercial Inspector. Since the reply of the petitioner did not find favour with the respondents - railways, an Enquiry Committee was constituted and a Departmental Enquiry was held against the petitioner. It was found in the enquiry that on the say of petitioner who was the Ticket Collector at the relevant time, one Mr.Sarvariya, who was also working with the railways had collected the amount of Rs.60/- from three passengers that had travelled without ticket and they were permitted to cross the gate. Since the charge levelled against the petitioner of accepting the amount of Rs.60/- through Sarvariya who was a Volunteer Ticket Collector was proved, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal, which was partly allowed. In the departmental appeal, punishment of removal of the petitioner from service was set aside and a lesser punishment of reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner by four stages with cumulative effect was passed. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. Shri Bambal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. It is stated that according to the charge levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner had accepted the bribe of Rs.60/- from three passengers that were travelling without ticket and had permitted them to cross the gate when he was posted as a Ticket Collector, but the said charge against the petitioner was not proved, inasmuch as it was found in the enquiry that the amount of Rs.60/- was received by Mr.Sarvariya from the three passengers. It is submitted that when the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved, a harsh punishment of reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner by four stages should not have been passed. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the order imposing the penalty on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the petition. It is submitted that by taking a humanitarian view in the matter, the Appellate Authority had reduced the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service and a lesser punishment of reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner by four stages with cumulative effect was passed. It is submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner was duly proved as the three passengers were acquainted with the petitioner and it is only on the say of the petitioner that Mr.Sarvariya had accepted the amount. In the circumstances of the case, the learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the order of the Tribunal and the documents annexed to the petition, specially the enquiry report, we find that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The charge levelled against the petitioner that he had accepted the amount of Rs.60/- from three passengers as illegal gratification and had permitted them to cross the gate when they had travelled without ticket was proved. Though it was found that the amount was not paid by the passengers to the petitioner directly, it was found that the said amount was paid to Mr.Sarvariya who was a Volunteer Ticket Collector, on the say of the petitioner. Since the three passengers were acquainted with the petitioner and since the petitioner was posted as a Ticket Collector on the gate, the Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding on the basis of the evidence that the petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled against him. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer. We do not find that the enquiry is vitiated on any count. We also do not find that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct proved against the petitioner. In fact, the Appellate Authority by taking a lenient view in the matter has reduced the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service to the punishment of reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner by four stages. The petitioner ought to have been happy with the lesser punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Appellate Authority. There is no fault in the order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.