UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, S.C. RAILWAY AND SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, S.C. RAILWAY Vs. N. VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are filed assailing the order dated 16 -12 -1999 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1218 of 1997. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P. No. 3825 of 2005. The petitioner was on duty as Head Traveling Ticket Examiner on Train No. 7487 (Tirumala Express) from Tirupati to Vijayawada on the night, intervening 3/4 -03 -1994. He was entrusted with the duty of handling two First Class coaches - F -3 and F -4. The Vigilance Inspector of the South Central Railway checked the compartments, at Tenali Station. It was found that while in F -3 coach one unauthorized passenger was traveling, in F -4 coach two second class ticket holders were traveling by quoting fictitious freedom fighters pass numbers. Alleging that the petitioner did not exhibit devotion to duty, failed to collect the fares and penalties from the unauthorized passengers, a memorandum of charge dated 20 -09 -1994 was issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 09 -10 -1994. Not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer. In his report, dated 22 -02 -1996, the enquiry officer held the charges as proved. On being furnished with the copy of the report, the petitioner submitted his representation on 11 -03 -1996. Taking the same into account, the 4th respondent passed an order dated 05 -07 -1996, imposing the penalty of reduction to lower post in the lower timescale and further reduction of the pay to the minimum of the lower scale, with cumulative effect. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent modified the penalty to the one of non -recurring, but upheld the other form of penalty. The revision filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent was rejected on 21 -07 -1997.

(2.) ASSAILING the order of punishment, the petitioner filed the O.A. before the Tribunal. He submitted that the two coaches were not adjacent to each other, but were separated by many coaches and thereby, he could not monitor both the coaches properly. It was his case that after the Vigilance check was conducted, his signatures were not taken and even the passengers' statement was not recorded. It was also stated that in the course of departmental enquiry, several witnesses were examined in his absence, and that the punishment imposed against him was totally disproportionate.

(3.) THROUGH its order dated 16 -12 -1999, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by setting aside the punishment of reduction of pay in the grade i.e. Rs. 1200 - 2040/ -, but sustained the punishment of reduction of the petitioner to the lower grade of the pay scale. Respondents in the O.A. filed W.P. No. 15238 of 2000, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner, on the other hand filed W.P. No. 3825 of 2005, not satisfied with the relief granted by the Tribunal.