UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJ KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in O.A. No. 183 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. application holding that the Railway has an authority to act upon and they can adjust the loss from recovery of the amount from the person concerned subject to following the rule of natural justice. But in the present case, the order has been passed directing the amount of loss to be recovered without giving any chance to the petitioner to explain his conduct with respect to the purported loss incurred by the Railway. In the present case, a loss has been calculated an amount of Rs. 15,14,124/- suffered by the Railway. It appears from the record that one M/s Maa Brinda Express Carrier had booked the coaches of Railway by Train No. 13021-13022 Express HWH- RXL-HWH vide letter no. C.375/Tender Leasing of VP/Pt. XVI/PB (PH-15) Kolkata but the party had some breaks in journey on that account the period for which he has booked and deposited the money was exceeded as the Railway coaches remained in use during extended period, there by caused the loss to the Railway to the extent of Rs. 15,14,124/-.

(2.) For this loss, a committee was constituted and the committee after verification the records found that on account of use of extra time of the Railway coaches, the Railway has received a loss. In the said Enquiry Committee, the petitioner was also a member. The joint committee report is dated 29.07.2015 wherein it has been found that the railway has incurred the loss of Rs. 4,12,454/- which bears signature of the petitioner, R.K. Sinha as being a member of that committee. After superannuation from service on 31st August, 2015, the Railway Administration has passed the impugned order on 30.11.2015 and has directed for the debit of Rs. 4,12,454 and this amount was accordingly not paid to the petitioner. He has approached to the Tribunal and Tribunal has found that the action of the Railway Administration is wrong in the sense that before passing the impugned order they were required to act as per the Railway Services Pension Rule, 1993 but before passing the impugned order no such inquiry was conducted nor any opportunity was given to the present petitioner. The Tribunal has given the example in this manner that if a person books the coach for journey for tourist purposes has to approach the Railway Administration with detailed programme with the number of coaches required and date of journey name of station where they wish to stay and accordingly the programme is accepted by the Railway station and if the program changes or there is detention or alteration of movement in the commencement of journey than in that circumstances the charges in the sense demurrage is to be realized from the person concerned.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner (Union of India) submits, as the Railway Administration received a loss on that account, in order to re compensate deduction to the extent was effected on the basis of report of a joint committee. The Joint Committee after proper inquiry submitted the report wherein the petitioner was also a member and identified the Railway Administration has received the loss of the aforesaid amount and as such his stand that he has no knowledge about the loss or he has not been given any notice or was not allowed to furnish his explanation, has no substance in the law when he was party to the inquiry, admittedly he himself along with others has found that the Railway has received the loss than he cannot take stand of no notice and challenge the action of the Railway for re compensating itself of the loss incurred.