Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
B Ganapathy Rao vs M/O Railways on 10 March, 2026
1 of 13
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/01220 of 2018
DATED TUESDAY, THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
B. Ganapathy Rao,
S/o. Muneswarar Rao
ECRC/MAS,
No. 9, Constable road
Flat No. 13, Ayyanavaram,
Chennai -600 023. .....Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R.S. Anandan)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Chief Commercial Manager/ PM
& Revisionary authority
Southern Railway
Headquarters office, Personal Branch
Chennai-600 003;
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager / II
& Appellate Authority
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager
Southern Railway, Chennai Division,
NGO Annexe Building, I-floor, Park Town
Chennai- 600 003;
3. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager /MAS
& Disciplinary Authority
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager
Confidential Section
Chennai- 600 003. ....... Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. Meera Gnanasekar)
CAV ON : 05.02.2026
2 of 13
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) Applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act seeking to quash the impugned punishment orders and to treat the period of out employment as duty for all purposes with all benefits and with due regard to his seniority.
2. Briefly, the case of applicant is that while working as Reservation Supervisor II at Chennai, he was served with a charge memo under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 on the charges that he was found in possession of Rs.28,090/ as excess in his private cash, thereby he has contravened the provisions of Article 3.1(i),
(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules 1968.
3. Though applicant denied the charges, enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, the applicant submitted his written defence stating that applicant had brought excess amount from home to pay to his friend, but failed to account the same in the register while reporting for duty. His friend had informed that he will collect the amount but failed to turn up. He realized his mistake only when vigilance check was conducted on that day on 12/01/2015. In fact, during the check, applicant immediately in one stroke produced the entire private cash. The same cannot be viewed as misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
3 of 13
4. The enquiry officer observed in para 7.1.3 of his report that "it is evident that there is no malafide intention in the act of charge official possessing his undeclared amount of Rs.28,090/ at the time of vigilance check. In other words I am unable to question the integrity of the charged official." and accordingly held that allegation that the charged official failed to maintain absolute integrity is not proved. But, having so held, merely because applicant had not accounted his private cash, the enquiry officer held that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant and contravened Rule 3.1 (ii) &(iii) of Railway service (conduct) Rules, 1968. Therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse and not supported by any evidence or witnesses.
5. The Disciplinary Authority (3rd Respondent), without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the enquiry officer and explanations given by the applicant, has imposed the penalty of "Compulsorily Retirement with 75% of pensionary benefits with immediate effect" vide his order dated 22.9.2016.
6. Applicant submitted his appeal on 5.10.2016 and the Appellate Authority (2 nd Respondent), vide order dated 27.4.2017, has modified the penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement' as "Re-instated into Railway service with reduction in post to ECRC on pay Rs. 51,000/- in level 5 of pay matrix with bottom seniority, until he is found fit 4 of 13 for further promotion after a period of 5 years with affecting future increments from the date of re-instatement; and the intervening period between the date of Compulsory Retirement and Re-instatement is to be treated as Dies non.".
7. The applicant filed a Review Petition on 29.5.2017, but without considering the same properly, the first respondent, vide his order dated 9.10.2017, rejected the same. Hence this OA is filed challenging the impugned punishment orders and praying for the relief as above.
8. Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Ms.Meera Gnanasekar and filed their reply statement contending that there is absolutely no merit in this OA and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. The Vigilance department and Central Bureau of Investigation conducted a preventive check in the Reservation Office at Chennai Central on 12.01.2015. The applicant who had been working as Reservation Supervisor II in Railways at the time of the check was on counter duty in Counter No.49 in the said reservation office. The applicant on demand, produced Railway cash of Rs.1,12,780/- only during the check. Regarding private cash, he produced an amount of Rs.28,650/- from his person whereas in the Private Cash Declaration Register he had declared only an amount of Rs.560/- as his personal cash. The Chief Reservation Supervisor was witness to the 5 of 13 check and an explanation was also obtained from the applicant regarding the excess amount. Subsequently, the excess amount of Rs.28,090/- was credited into Railway accounts vide Money Receipt No.509433 dated 12.01.2015.
10. Since possession of excess amount of Rs.28,090/- by the applicant as against the declared amount of Rs.560/- as his private cash was a serious misconduct and amounted to violation of conduct rules, the 3 rd respondent who is the Disciplinary Authority for applicant, issued a major penalty charge memorandum dated 14.08.2015 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Later, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 16.09.2015.
11. The applicant did not attend the preliminary hearing conducted by the Inquiry Officer on 09.10.2015 but attended the next preliminary hearing on 18.11.2015. The applicant also nominated a Defence Helper for his case. Thereafter, the applicant did not attend the regular hearing on 19.02.2016 and 07.04.2016. The applicant attended the final hearing on 28.04.2016. Six Exhibits were marked from S.1 to S.6. During the final hearing, the applicant cross examined the witnesses named in the charge memorandum and submitted his written defence brief on 30.05.2016. After the conclusion of hearing, and based on the examination of the witnesses, and evaluation of records, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report dated 30.06.2016 holding that the charges made against the applicant in Charge Memorandum SF 5 dated 6 of 13 14.08.2015 stand proved.
12. Pursuant to the Inquiry Report and after careful examination of the written representation dated 01.08.2016 submitted by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Penalty Advice dated 22.09.2016, imposed a penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" with 75% of pensionary (pension and gratuity) benefits with immediate effect.
13. As against the penalty advice, applicant availed the statutory remedy by submitting appeal dated 05.10.2016 to the Appellate Authority (second respondent), the Additional Divisional Railway Manager II, Chennai, and requested for personal hearing. The Appellate Authority granted personal hearing on 24.11.2016 and after careful examination of the appeal submitted by the applicant, passed order dated 27.04.2017 modifying the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement from service" to "Reinstatement into railway service as ECRC in the scale of pay of Rs.51,100/ in the Level 5 of Pay Matrix with bottom seniority" and that the applicant could be found fit for further promotion after a period of five years affecting future increments from the date of reinstatement.
14. Against the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority, the applicant submitted Revision Petition dated 29.05.2017 to the Commercial 7 of 13 Revisioning Authority namely, Chief Manager/Passenger Marketing, Southern Railway, Chennai. The first respondent-Revisioning Authority considered the Revision Petition submitted by the applicant and passed order dated 09.10.2017 confirming the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority.
15. It is contended that the applicant has been given full opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings and the statutory authorities have also applied their minds to the submissions made by the applicant and arrived at the above stated conclusions regarding the punishment. The applicant's claim for setting aside the orders passed by the statutory authorities cannot be sustained both on facts or law and is liable to be summarily rejected. Hence prayed for dismissing the OA.
16. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that respondents failed to consider the fact that the enquiry officer had held that the contravention of provisions of Article 3.1(i) is not proved. The said fact was not at all considered by the disciplinary authority and without issuing any notice for disagreeing with the view of the enquiry officer held the applicant contravened the provisions of Article 3.1 (i), (ii) & (iii) of the Railway Services (conduct) Rules, 1968 and awarded the punishment. The appellate authority also without considering the same modified the penalty into re- instatement into service by reducing the pay scale of the applicant and the seniority. The same is clearly against the principles of Natural Justice and also double 8 of 13 punishment which is against the rules.
17. It is further argued that respondents ought to have seen that the delinquency committed by the applicant is not a misconduct when his integrity is not questioned. It is only a mistake committed by the applicant due to the fact that the applicant involved himself in his duties forgetting the private cash carried by him to be handed over to his friend. The same cannot be viewed as misconduct warranting disciplinary action and also awarding severe punishment. The quantum of punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency alleged to have been committed. The alleged act of the applicant is human error which cannot be presumed that the applicant failed to show devotion to duty. It is only an assumption and presumption of the enquiry officer and there is no material evidence for the same. Hence the impugned modified penalty is liable to be set-aside.
18. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that none of the grounds raised by the applicant is tenable. The Revisioning Authority has considered the grounds raised by the applicant and given his clarifications in his order dated 09.10.2017 that proving of the charges under Rule 3 (1) (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966 in the Inquiry Report was sufficient for imposing the major penalty on the applicant. The Revisioning Authority had considered the revision petition submitted by the applicant and passed a detailed order considering 9 of 13 the findings of the Inquiry Officer with respect to the charges under Rule 3(1)(i) and Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) and the modifications made by the Appellate Authority in his order dated 27.04.2017.
19. It is contended that the modified major penalty is based on Rule 6(vi), Part III of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which reads as under:
"(vi) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Railway Servant during such specified period to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the said specified period -
(a) the period of reduction to time scale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay and if so, to what extent; and
(b) the Railway servant shall regain the original seniority in the higher time scale of pay, grade, post or service.".
Rule 6 which deals with penalties starts with the phrase "The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a railway servant, namely: -". Therefore, it is argued that if the intention of the rule making authority was that only one of the penalties may be imposed, then an appropriate expression conveying this intention would have been employed. The 10 of 13 applicant's contention that the modified penalty amounts to double punishment is hence wrong and is liable to be rejected.
20. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides and perused the record.
21. It is observed that the applicant had participated in the disciplinary proceedings. He had attended the preliminary hearing on 18.11.2015. He had nominated a Defence Helper for his case and attended the regular hearing conducted and completed on 28.04.2016. The additional documents sought by the applicant were taken on record and six exhibits were marked from S.1 to S.6 and the applicant had cross examined the witnesses named in the charge memorandum. The applicant also submitted his written defence brief on 30.05.2016. It is not alleged by the applicant that disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the applicable rules or according to prescribed procedure. It is not the case of the applicant that inquiry is held by an authority who is not competent to hold the same. It is also not alleged that sufficient opportunity was not given to applicant in the disciplinary proceedings. The only ground of attack made is on the findings given by the Inquiry officer and the penalty orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority.
11 of 13
22. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that applicant was independently dealing with the responsible work of issuing reservation tickets including the much sought after tatkal quota reservation tickets, opening day reservation tickets, etc., against payment of money by passengers. The applicant was required to protect the interests of Railways and show utmost integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which was unbecoming of a Railway servant. The claim of the applicant that the excess amount of Rs.28,090/- belonged to his friend or that the non- declaration of the excess cash was an act of forgetfulness does not have any merit in the facts and circumstances of the case and it had been considered by the authorities also. The nature of misconduct charged against the applicant should be viewed seriously for preventing such actions in future, whereby ticketing transactions should not be done in an unlawful manner. The penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority had been modified by the Appellate Authority as a deterrent punishment and if any further leniency is shown, it will affect the morale of the rule abiding employees and also the trust and confidence of the travelling public in the ticket reservation process. The modified penalty imposed on the applicant is justified and commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. We are in full agreement with the contentions of the respondents.
23. It is observed the Inquiry Officer has discussed the oral and documentary evidences in para 5.0.0 and 6.0.0 of the Inquiry Report. He has assessed the oral and 12 of 13 documentary evidences and given reasons for his findings. The findings given by him have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. We do not see any infirmity in any of the orders so passed.
24. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union of India and Ors (AIR 1996 SC 484), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: -
"Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/ Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/ Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent 13 of 13 findings on the evidence.".
25. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Man Mohan Nath Sinha, [(2009) 8 SCC 310], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has re-iterated the law as under: -
"12. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers from manifest error....".
26. In view of the foregoing discussions and the settled law as above, we do not find any merit in this OA and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
10 .03.2026
asvs
A.S.V. Sagar Digitally signed by ASAPU
SRINIVASA VIDYASAGAR
P.S., CAT, Date: 2026.03.20 15:59:43
Chennai Bench. +05'30'