UNION OF INDIA Vs. G KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the South Central Railway challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No.80 of 2001, dated 30.10.2003.

(2.) The respondent was the applicant before the Tribunal. He was working as Chief Ticket Inspector (C.T.I.) at Vijayawada. While so, he was issued with a charge memo alleging that during the period 1992 to 1995, he removed 13 defective extra fare tickets (EFTs) from the stock and put them to use and issued receipts to the passengers and thereby misappropriated the amount. It was alleged that the applicant has issued EFT passenger foil No.SC/A 741081 for Rs.268/- by Train No.6004 on 14.6.1995 with difference of fare. Similarly, on 2.12.1995 he got issued EFT No. 230340 by Train No.2711 for Rs.146/- and appropriated the said amounts without remitting the said amount to the Railways thereby he failed to maintain the absolute integrity and also failed to protect the interest of the Railways and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Railway Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the Railway Employees Conduct Rules, 1966. The disciplinary inquiry was initiated on the basis of the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He submitted the explanation denying the charges framed against him. It was specific contention that he had worked up to 4.8.1995 as C.T.I, with station duty and in charge of the Stores and money. It is also his case that he did not travel by any train and he had not issued any EFTs referred to above class got issued EFT as alleged and thereafter enquiry was conducted. Ultimately, Enquiry Officer found the applicant guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority on accepting the findings recorded by the inquiring authority passed an order on 7.8.2000 and imposed penalty of removal from the service. The penalty was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter he filed O.A.No.80 of 2001 challenging the validity of the order of removal passed against him. The learned Tribunal after considering the matter held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on legally acceptable evidence and on the other hand, there was no evidence to sustain the charge as framed against the petitioner and therefore, set aside the order of punishment and directed the reinstatement with other attendant benefits by an order dated 30.10.2003. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the Railways.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways vehemently submits that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and coming to a different conclusion. The Tribunal itself acted as appellate authority against the order of the punishment passed by the department, which procedure is contrary to the catena of the decisions of the Supreme Court. When once it is found that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner in accordance with rules keeping in view the principles of natural justice and by affording reasonable opportunity, the Tribunal has no power to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583. The learned Counsel would also take this Court to the evidence of various witnesses and also documents filed and submits that the findings of the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable. Further also, he submits that even if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted properly, the Tribunal is duty bound to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh enquiry, but it cannot set aside the finding and grant relief. He takes the assistance from the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Ajit Jain v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2002) 10 SCC 580, and R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90.