NAGINBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide Annexure A -1 charge sheet issued by respondent No. 3. He was working as a Senior Goods Clerk at Gandhinagar and was assigned with the duty of booking of consignments, delivery of booked consignments and issuance of passenger train ticket. On the basis of a complaint dated 15.9.2011 received from one Mr. Mohammad Irfan Ansari, the vigilance branch of the respondents had set trap proceedings against the applicant. After the trap proceedings, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.9.2011 and the suspension was thereafter revoked vide order dated 3.1.2012. On the same date, he was served with the Annexure A -1 charge sheet under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. He sent Annexure A -2 reply dated 18.3.2012 to the respondents. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in issuing Annexure A -1 memo dated 3.1.2012, the applicant has approached this Tribunal with the present OA. By way of the grounds mentioned in this OA the applicant states that on the basis of the alleged incident which led to issuance of Annexure A -1 charge sheet, is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Annexure A -1 was issued by the authority who is neither the Appointing Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority in relation to the applicant. The charges alleged against him are not independent, specific and distinct. Out of the three charges, charge Nos. 2 and 3 have not relevance with the charge No. 1. There is a grave and gross non application of mind on the part of the respondents. After denial of charges by the applicant on 18.3.212, the respondents had issued Annexure A -3 corrigendum dated 7.5.2012 which makes it clear that the respondent authority had miserably failed to take due care and verification of facts at the time of issuance of Annexure A -1. It is not permissible to issue Annexure A -3 corrigendum after denial of the charges by the applicant, without giving opportunity to the applicant. Hence, Annexure A -1 charge sheet requires declaration that the same is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. By way of Annexure A -3 corrigendum material change has been brought out on record by the respondents in the chargesheet which is not just, proper, legal and permissible. The entire exercise done by the vigilance team of the respondents and investigation conducted are contrary to the provisions of the Vigilance Manual. No independent witness in the rank of Gazetted Officer was arranged. The only witness called in the trap proceedings was not a Gazetted employee and all other members of the team belonged to the Vigilance branch. The Station Master in -charge of the Station was not informed by the Vigilance team prior to the trap proceedings and hence, he declined to associate with the Vigilance proceedings.

(2.) ON these grounds he prays for the following reliefs: -

(3.) A rejoinder was filed by the applicant wherein in is stated that it is not true that the applicant had not submitted any defense against the charge sheet dated 3.1.2012. A copy of the said reply dated 18.3.2012 is Annexure as A -2 of the OA. The respondents failed to consider the contention of the said reply as well as the request of the applicant. The applicant prays for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents.