PINAKDHAR SAMANTARAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dtd. 1/4/2011 passed in O.A. No.337 of 2008 under Annexure-11, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, while allowing the said O.A. filed by the petitioner, although quashed the show-cause notice dtd. 26/8/2008 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Khurda Road for proposed penalty of 'removal from railway service', but upheld the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, while working as Head Booking Clerk in Balugaon Railway Station, information was received that he was in the habit of overcharging illiterate passengers. Accordingly, on 21/8/2005, a decoy check was organized by the Vigilance Branch of East Coast Railway to verify the veracity of facts. A team comprising the following persons was framed to conduct the above check:-

(3.) Mr. A.K. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Inquiring Officer though found that the demand of illegal gratification was not established, but came to a conclusion that the charge under Article-I is proved. He also came to a conclusion that the charge under Article-II is partly proved, as shortage of cash is not exactly appropriate as mala fide intention but due to lack of efficiency in cash dealing. But the disciplinary authority, without considering the same in proper perspective and without assigning any reasons for disagreement with the report of the Inquiring Officer, concluded that the charges under Articles-I and II are proved and accordingly imposed the major penalty, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that it is the duty of the appellate authority to call for the records of the proceedings and, after going through the records as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner, pass a reasoned and speaking order, but in the instant case, the appellate authority, without discussing all the points raised by the petitioner in his appeal, passed a cryptic order upholding the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It is further contended that the Tribunal, vide order dtd. 1/4/2011, though quashed the impugned notice to enhance the punishment, but upheld the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and, thereby, has not applied its mind properly. Thus, the order so passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed.