(1.) THE applicant in this case is a dismissed employee of the Western Railway, who was lastly working as Sr. Booking Clerk at Mulund Railway Station in Central Railway. The applicant came before this Tribunal after he received the order dated 24.6.2002 passed on his mercy appeal, which he received on 17.4.2007. The applicant has challenged the order of punishment dated 26.2.2001 the order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.4.2001 and the order of the Revisional Authority dated 31.7.2001. It appears from the roznama order that the M.P. for condonation of delay was allowed by this Tribunal taking into consideration the limitation from the date of the communication of the order on his statutory mercy appeal. Very briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a charge memorandum dated 16.7.1998 was issued to the applicant. In the covering letter to the charge memorandum, one of the endorsement was to the General Manager (Vigilance) with reference to the Vigilance letter dated 15.6.1998.
(2.) IT appears from the charge memorandum that the following two charges were framed against the applicant:
(3.) THE applicant thereafter preferred a mercy petition under Rule 402 of Indian Railway Establishment Code (Volume -I) wherein the applicant prayed before the authority to consider the records and the various appeals and petitions. The applicant specifically mentioned that he signed one document called joint memo at Exhibit P -5 under torture and threat by the vigilance party and at the dictate of the Chief Vigilance Inspector (C.V.1.), Shri S.N. Tiwari, who himself was most corrupt officer and was facing CBI prosecution and was under suspension. The joint memo was prepared by Vigilance Team. He was neither allowed to read nor he read the memo. He further contended that from perusal of the joint memos (Exhibit -5) it revealed that initially it was mentioned that "the following tickets were found in booking office." However, at the end of Para I, one sentence had been added later after obtaining signatures that "these tickets were kept by him on window.". Thus, it could be seen that his statement was contrary in nature and the manipulation was done by Shri S.N. Tiwari. However, the mercy appeal was rejected.