Karnataka High Court
Mr Mahendra Singh vs The Union Of India on 4 January, 2022
Bench: P S Dinesh Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6940 OF 2020 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
MR. MAHENDRA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O. SRI. RAM SHANKAR
WORKING AS SENIOR
MATERIAL MANAGER (GENERAL)
HEAD QUARTER OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CHIEF MATERIAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
EAST BLOCK,GADAG ROAD
HUBBALI - 580 020
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF:
A-5, ANAND APARTMENT
JAWAHAR CHOWK, SABARMATI
AHAMEDABAD-380 005
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD
RAIL BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. GENERAL MANAGER (VIGILANCE)
WESTERN RAILWAY
HEADQUARTER OFFICE
CHURCH GATE
MUMBAI-400 020
2
3. GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS
3RD FLOOR, EAST WING
GADAG ROAD
HUBLI-580 020
4. MR. R.C.PUNETHA
ADRM AND ENQUIRY OFFICER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
KESWAPUR
HUBLI-580 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. N.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED IN BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU,
DATED 30.10.2019 IN O.A.NO.170/00481/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner was working as a Senior Material Manager with South Western Railways during 2007. One Shri Anil Rochani approached him for registration of his firm for local purchases. Petitioner is alleged to have demanded some illegal ratification. Shri Rochani approached the Vigilance Department of Railways and he was given currency notes of Rs.500 denomination. Complainant gave three notes to the petitioner. 3 Petitioner demanded some more money and the complainant gave one more currency note of Rs.500/-. It is alleged that when the Vigilance Officers entered the room, the petitioner swallowed the said notes. Based on this incident, a departmental enquiry was conducted and three charges were framed. First charge is acceptance of illegal gratification. Second is swallowing four currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and third is assaulting the Vigilance Officer. In the departmental enquiry, charge No.1 was proved, charge No.2 was not proved and charge No.3 was partly proved. Based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, passed the penalty order dated November 2, 2017, reducing the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years. Penalty order was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal1. By the impugned order, the CAT has dismissed the original application. Hence, this writ petition.
1 'The CAT' for short 4
2. Heard Shri Ambaji Rao Najare, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.S.Prasad, learned advocate for the Railways-respondents No.1 to 4.
3. Shri Najare urged a solitary ground that four currency notes alleged to have been swallowed by the petitioner were not recovered nor there is any medical proof that petitioner had swallowed notes. Therefore, in the absence of material object or any proof that petitioner had swallowed the currency notes, the penalty order as also the order passed by the CAT are unsustainable in law.
4. In reply, Shri Prasad, for the railways submitted that the incident has taken place at about 13:00 hours. Petitioner was taken to the hospital and X-ray was taken. Initially, he refused to subject himself for Endoscopy test and later he agreed for the same. Endoscopy test was done at 17:00 hours. Therefore, no medical evidence is available as the notes were digested within 3 to 4 hours. PWs.2 and 5, who are independent witnesses 5 have testified that the petitioner had swallowed the notes. He submitted that the CAT has considered all aspects of the matter and perused the entire original records of the enquiry and passed a cogent and a well reasoned order. He argued that the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence while examining the matter concerning the departmental enquiry under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned advocates on both sides and perused the records.
6. The main ground urged before us and the CAT is one and the same. The CAT has recorded that the petitioner had not disputed the incident. Independent witnesses have corroborated the incident and the conversations were recorded in a Compact Disk. Shri Prasad is right in his submission that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India shall not re-appreciate the evidence on record. Along with the statement of 6 objections, respondents have filed the enquiry report. It is recorded in Para 5 of the said report that PW.1 has stated that petitioner had gulped currency notes and not behaving normally. PW.5 has stated that petitioner was continuously chewing and he was abnormal. Shri Prasad has made available the original records and submitted that PW.5's testimony proves the case of Vigilance department. He has also pointed out that in Exhibit P.2, it is clearly recorded that petitioner was taken to the hospital at 13:10 hours and X-ray was taken at 15:00 hours. It is also recorded that initially, petitioner had refused to undergo Endoscopy test and later consented and finally Endoscopy test was done at 17:00 hours.
7. In view of the above facts, the points that arise for consideration are;
• Whether there is any breach of procedure or principles of natural justice?
• Whether the penalty order requires any interference?
7
8. As recorded hereinabove, the main ground urged before the CAT and the solitary ground urged before us is that the alleged currency notes were not recovered nor any medical proof is available. Petitioner has not urged any grievance with regard to the violation of the principles of natural justice or infraction of any settled procedure while conducting the enquiry.
9. The second aspect is with regard to the quantum of punishment. In the light of the material facts and the enquiry report, the employer has imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages. The facts and circumstances of the case are not such that penalty shocks the conscience of the Court. (See Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran2.)
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition to interfere with order passed by the CAT. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
2 (2015) 2 SCC 610 8
11. In view of disposal of this writ petition, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AV