SURESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner, presently working on the post of Pharmacist at Railway Health Unit, North Western Railway, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, seeks to question the order dated 15.07.2011 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('CAT') has dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- the Original Application ('OA') No.126/2009 as filed by him assailing the orders passed in the departmental inquiry.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner, while working on the post of Pharmacist at the North Western Railway Health Unit, Degana, was issued a Special Duty Pass bearing No.337830 dated 18.06.2004 for the purpose of traveling of his wife Smt. Rajbala with one attendant from Degana to Jodhpur and back for medical purposes. The imputation against the petitioner had been that the said pass carried validity upto 19.06.2004 for travelling in Second Class for the purpose of treatment at the Railway Hospital, Jodhpur but, during the vigilance checking conducted on board in Train No.4060 on 12.07.2004 in a 3-tier AC coach between Jodhpur to Degana stations, Mr. Rohit, son of the petitioner, was found travelling as an irregular passenger on the said pass whereas the patient, i.e., the wife of the petitioner, was not found travelling in the said train. It was alleged that when the son of the applicant was caught, he was subjected to verification and it was found that the validity of the pass was over but the words "to onwards" were added after the validity date in the pass without the knowledge of the concerned authority. It was thus imputed that the petitioner committed forgery by addition of the words in the pass and then, permitted misuse of the pass for travelling by his son without the patient, for whose purpose the pass had been issued.

(3.) SEEKING to question the order as passed by the CAT, the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that the finding about interpolation in the pass with inclusion of words "onwards" is totally baseless and not supported by admissible evidence. It is further submitted that so far the alleged act of travelling was concerned, in the first place, the petitioner had not taken any such journey and then, an amount of Rs.511/- was deducted from his salary just after issuance of charge-sheet. It is submitted that the CAT has failed to consider that the penalty had already been imposed on the petitioner even before conclusion of the inquiry. It is also contended that the submission of the petitioner that he could not be penalized for the alleged misdeeds of his son and that even otherwise, no loss was caused to the railways, have not been given due consideration. It is also averred in the petition that "the petitioner has been penalized with grave punishment inasmuch as he has suffered a loss of huge amount including loss of seniority for such a small incident".