LAWS(P&H)-1965-11-57

SAINA PATI MALHOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 17, 1965
SAINA PATI MALHOTRA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Saina Pati Malhotra has challenged the order of his removal from service of the Railway Administration passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Ferozepur, respondent No. 3, on 10th February, 1962.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed a booking clerk on 7th of May, 1944, and was confirmed in this appointment on 7th of December, 1947. While he was employed as a clerk in the Third Class-Booking Office at Ludhiana between 4th and 8th of February, 1955, he is said to have issued concession tickets for railway officials described as P.T.Os (privilege ticket orders) and actually delivered them to persons not entitled to use them after charging full railway fares. It may be mentioned that the railway fare payable on a P.T.O. is about one-third of the actual fare. The first charge-sheet which was issued by the General Manager to the petitioner (Annexure A) merely states that out of the tickets issued by him between 4th and 8th February, 1955, he omitted to record on ticket Nos. 193115, 193116, 193118, 192640, 10855, 10856, 10857, 10827 and 10829 the word 'P.T.O." and further it was not shown on the these tickets how much fare had been actually recovered from the passengers. These two omissions were described as "serious misconduct" in the charge-sheet was served on him and this is Annexure D. After mentioning the nine ticket numbers on which he had omitted to record the word "P.T.O." and had further failed to record the fare, it was stated that "by doing so, you enabled yourself to collect the full fares from the passengers and remit only one-third fares to the railway, thereby misappropriating the remaining amount viz, two-thirds fares on the tickets mentioned above. This amounts to serious misconduct".

(3.) Thus, the charge for which the petitioner was tried related to nine tickets on which his omissions to record the words "P.T.O." and the actual fare charged are said to have enabled him to misappropriate two-thirds fare chargeable on each of these tickets.