GURNAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has knocked the door of this Tribunal with a prayer to quash and set aside impugned orders dated 23.5.2013 (A -1), appellate order dated 27.6.2013 (A -2), Revisional Authority order dated 5.8.2013 (A -3) and Inquiry Report dated 4.2.2013 (A -4) and to direct the respondents to release him all the consequential benefits/reliefs etc.

(2.) FIRST of all let us notice the bare minimum facts. The applicant, an ex -Army personnel, came to be appointed in the respondent Railways as a Clerk and retired as Chief Depot Material Superintendent. A charge -sheet (SF -5) came to be issued to the applicant on 22.3.2012 (A -6) with the allegation that on 21.7.2010, he tried to commit theft of 22 mm plate through Sh. Karam Singh, for further unauthorizedly handing over to M/s. Sai Builders and Engineers. Similar transportation of 22 MM plate had taken place on 16.7.2010. It was also alleged that there was excess material available in the depot than record and, therefore, applicant failed to maintain devotion to duty. On denial of charges by the applicant that he had not committed any misconduct inasmuch as 22 M plate was carried only for weighing and no other unauthorized purpose and there was no shortage of material supplied to Depot under his control, full -fledged enquiry was ordered to be conducted, without passing of any order based on formation of an option to do so in terms of rule 9(2) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. The charges against the applicant were proved on the basis of oral statements of Karan Singh and Surinder Singh, though there was no documentary evidence in support thereof. The RPF material incoming register indicated that plate of 22 mm was purchased by contractor from open market. This could not be ignored by inquiry officer. The record also indicated that there was no shortfall of store under applicants control. However, by ignoring the witnesses/evidence of applicant, the I.O. chose to prove all the charges against the applicant.

(3.) THE applicant submitted an appeal dated 27.5.2013 (A -1). However, the appeal has also been rejected on 27.6.2013 (A -2) but slight modification of penalty of dismissal to that of removal from service. The applicant filed a review petition dated 12.7.2013 (A -12) under rule 25 of R.S. (D&A) Rules, 1968, which has also been rejected vide order dated 5.8.2013 (A -3).