Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
N.Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 19 November, 2015
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Applicaton No.936/2013
Thursday this the 19th day of November 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
N.Chandra Kumar, S/o.R.Nallayya,
Ex.Senior Travelling Ticket Examiner,
Southern Railway, Ernakulam Junction.
Residing at Door No.56, Mohan Kumaramangalam Street,
Surampatti, Erode - 9. . . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.
4. The Chief Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
5. Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Railways, Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
6. Chief Vigilance Officer,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
7. The Divisional Personnel Manager,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil)
This application having been heard on 28th October 2015 this Tribunal
on 19th November 2015 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mrs.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant who was working in the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway was placed under suspension and later transferred to the Thiruvananthapuram Division of Southern Railway during the year 2005. After joining the Thiruvananthapuram Division, the applicant was issued with a major penalty memorandum of charges under No.V/VO/Con/31 dated 16.5.2006 wherein it was inter-alia alleged that the applicant while working as a TTE/S/CBE on 27.10.2004 by Train No.5011 between Coimbatore and Madras Central had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant in that :
(a) he had demanded and accepted Rs.320/- from Sri.P.Jayaseelan, Con/636/TNPM/MAS for allotting S8/65 and 66 of 5011 Express and issued EFT for Rs.240/- and
(b) produced an excess of Rs.563.50 which he had concealed while giving initial cash statement.
2. The applicant denied the allegations, an Enquiry Officer of the Vigilance Organization was appointed, and enquiry conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 25.3.2008 holding the applicant guilty. The applicant submitted his objection to the enquiry report. The applicant submits that notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was not guilty of any misconduct he was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 30.9.2008. Against Annexure A-1 the applicant submitted an appeal dated 6.10.2008 addressed to the 3 rd respondent, Appellate Authority, but the penalty of compulsory retirement was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The applicant submitted a Revision Petition dated 13.10.2009 addressed to the 4th respondent, Chief Commercial Manager which was also rejected by Annexure A-3 dated 11.1.2010. The applicant submitted a petition addressed to His Excellency, the President of India, which was rejected by Annexure A-4. The applicant submits that Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 are arbitrary and discriminatory, contrary to law and hence, violative of the constitutional guarantees. The applicant submits that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that the applicant had demanded or collected any amount in excess of what is due from the decoy witnesses. That is evident from the deposition of the two witnesses SW-1 and SW-2. Whatever has transpired on the day and stated by the witnesses cannot be construed to be a misconduct falling within the provision of Rule 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966. There were no independent witnesses and there were no hearsay witnesses. It is also clear that there was no demand from the applicant and there was also no demand from the witnesses for collection of the balance. The applicant submits that the provisions relating to the Vigilance Manual was well considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Monishankar V. Union of India and another reported in 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 819. The applicant therefore seeks relief to quash Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 and direct the respondents to grant the applicant all the consequential benefits as if Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 had not been issued at all.
3. Respondents in their reply submits that on getting information that the TTEs working in Train No.5011 between SA and MAS are demanding and collecting more money than the Railway dues, for allotting vacant berths to passengers holding IInd Mail/Express tickets, a vigilance check was conducted on 27.10.2004. For this purpose, Shri.P.Jayaseelan, Constable No.636 of TNPM Railway Protection force (RPF) was directed to act as a passenger and Shri.G.Narayana Rao Constable No.294 of RPF was directed to move along with him as a witness. Shri.P.Jayaseelan was given a IInd Mail/Exp. Ticket No.12661080 for two adults ex.Salem to Ongole and a sum of Rs.450/- by the vigilance team duly mentioning the denominations of currencies, after taking over his personal cash. Shri.P.Jayaseelan was advised to approach the TTE manning any sleeper coach of Tr.No.5011 Exp. and seek accommodation for Shri.G.Narayana Rao and himself on the strength of the Mail/Express ticket he was holding. He was also instructed that only on specific demand from the TTE extra amount may be given. Shri.Narayana Rao was directed to watch the transaction and over hear the conversation between the TTE and Shri.P.Jayaseelan and inform the vigilance if specific demand is there for money by the TTE and collection of more money than the actual dues. Proceedings were drawn and all the members who took part, signed it.
4. According to the programme, Shri.P.Jayaseelan approached the applicant in this O.A for berths from SA to Ongole with the tickets already handed over to him by the vigilance team. He and Shri.G.Narayana Rao were accommodated in S8 Coach in berths No.65 and 66. A sum of Rs.320/- was demanded and Shri.P.Jayaseelan produced Rs.50/- x 1 (6 MM 224990) Rs.20/- x 3 (No.62 G 169178, No.04 W 495979, No.71B 604818) Rs.10 x 2 (No.93 T 348616, No.15 R 410343) along with a ticket 351612 dated 27.10.2004, for two adults, Salem to Ongole and an EFT No.351612 dated 27.10.2004 for Rs.240/- issued by the applicant. Thereafter Shri.Shabviz Ali Baig was asked to verify the currency note numbers in the pre drawn proceedings and to pick up those currencies, if available, in the cash handed over by the applicant after comparing with the pre drawn proceedings. He picked out the marked currencies from the Railway cash produced by the applicant and prepared a statement for this. Shri.Suresh, Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector, the batch in charge of the applicant was brought to the spot and was directed to read the initial drawn proceedings. He enquired about the whole incidents to the applicant and the RPF constables and got convinced himself. After that, he made endorsement on the pre drawn proceedings. The Charges against the applicant are (a) he had demanded and collected Rs.320/- from Shri.P.Jayaseelan RPF Con.No.636/TNPM/MAS for allotting S8/65 and 66 of 5011 Exp. and issued extra fare ticket for Rs.240/-. (b) he produced an excess of Rs.563.50 which he had concealed while giving initial cash statement. Thus he contravened Rule 2430 (a) of IRCM and 3.1(1)(II) and (III) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Respondents submit that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the applicant and his defence helper were given enough opportunity to defend their case. All relevant papers, including the report submitted by the inquiry officer and the representation submitted by the applicant against the report were sent to the Disciplinary Authority, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (2 nd respondent) for his consideration. After careful examination of the case, the disciplinary authority arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against the applicant stands proved. Considering the gravity of the offences committed by him, the applicant was imposed with a penalty of compulsory retirement from service as per Annexure A-1 Penalty Advice No.V/VO/Con/31 dated 22.9.2008. Against Annexure A-1 the applicant filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent, the Additional Divisional Railway Manager. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager after going through the entire records, recorded that the applicant had no idea about the personal cash and hence he was forced to give four different cash statements. It was also added that the offences committed by the applicant has spoiled the image of Railways. As such, it was ordered that the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is justified and hence confirmed. The applicant again approached the Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, the 4 th respondent, through a Revision Petition. After careful examination of the whole case file, he observed that the enquiry was conducted following the procedures correctly and enough opportunity was given to the applicant to defend his case. It was also added that the findings are warranted by evidence. Hence the Revision Authority ordered that there is no ground to reduce the penalty and hence confirmed the penalty. The applicant filed a mercy appeal before the President of India. After considering the petition, the President of India rejected the petition by observing that there is no merit in the petition and adequate leniency has already shown to the applicant.
5. Respondents submit that the enquiry was conducted according to the procedure prescribed in the vigilance manual. The averment that the witnesses are not qualified enough to be considered as independent witnesses is not correct. It is submitted that the RPF department was advised to send any two RPF constables for the check. RPF department is an entirely different organization and not under the control of vigilance department. No particular constable was demanded by the vigilance department. The RPF staff were not instructed to contact this particular TTE. They were directed to contact any of the TTE. Above all, the applicant has never denied the transaction with these RPF constables. In addition to this, the applicant himself depended on the deposition of these witnesses in the statement of defence for establishing that he had not demanded extra money from them. Above all, if the witnesses are not independent and stock witnesses there should be some definite interest in one of the parties, which is not proved and not even raised by the applicant or by his defence helper during the enquiry. The applicant demanded a sum of Rs.320/- which was given by Sri. P.Jayaseelan and a receipt for Rs.240/- only was issued. The applicant had demanded more than the charges prescribed by Railways.
6. Respondents submit that in para 704 (v) (a) requirement of two witnesses is only to safeguard the interest of the administration in proving the charge and in this case it was not the contention of the charged official that the money received was loan or something else. Hence, the charged official can not seek to derive any advantage out of the lack of two independent witnesses in this case. Further, it is stated that this trap was planned only a few days before the actual execution and hence seeking gazetted officers was not possible. Para 705 (a) mentions 'as far as possible' and hence the witness being a non-gazetted official does not vitiate the proceedings of trap. Respondent submits that the applicant has spoiled the image of Railways and Railway was left with no other option other than to take up the applicant for the irregularities.
7. Heard the counsel for the applicant and respondents and considered the written submissions made. Applicant is challenging Annexure A-1 penalty advice, Annexure A-2 Appellate Order, Annexure A-3 Revision Order and Annexure A-4 Presidential Petition. This is a vigilance trap case arising out of information of demanding and collecting money in excess of Railway dues from passengers for allotment of vacant berths. If a berth is vacant it is the right of the commuter holding a valid ticket to be allotted the same if he makes a request and on payment of due charges. The curbing and throttling of channelization of allotment to a spoils system of allotment on payment of charges in excess of dues by a system of surprise checks is a regular process of vigilance department in the respondent department. Applicant drew the attention of the Bench to the Apex Court decision in Moni Shankar case (supra) Respondents in its Vigilance Manual at para 307 has copied the trap guidelines laid down in Moni Shankar's case.
307. Departmental Trap cases - Procedure & Guidelines:
307.1 The Railway Vigilance department also carries out decoy checks.
These checks require careful planning, selection, execution and documentation for success. The need for a very good information network and regular flow of information from the field cannot be over emphasized, for it is only this that leads Vigilance to the right person at the right time.
307.2 The spot for the trap should be selected very carefully after thorough ground work. If one has studied the field conditions well, then one would know which are the vulnerable locations and who are the regular extorters. For example, checks on booking windows are most rewarding when there is a huge rush at the windows and the booking clerks help themselves to extra cash by way of keeping the change, dropping of cash etc. Similar would be the case in an overflowing train during the vacation period.
307.3 The selection of the decoy has also to be done very carefully. If he is a Government Servant, he should have a clear past and should not have any enmity against the person who is to be trapped. If the decoy is a non-Government person, then he should be adequately informed of the purpose of this trap. The decoy should be one who would always stand with the Vigilance agency under all circumstances and not be bought over or pressurized by the trapped person. He would have to be told before-hand that his commitment in the case would last a long while, he would face cross examination in the subsequent inquiry process and, hence, should be willing to cooperate with the Vigilance till the very end.
307.4 In addition, the Investigating Officer/Inspector should immediately arrange one or more officials (gazetted or non-gezetted or a combination of gezetted & non- gazetted) to act as independent witness/witnesses. It is imperative that all Railway employees should assist and witness a trap, whenever they are approached by the Vigilance branch. Refusal to assist or witne ss a trap without sufficient reason can be construed as breach of duty, making the person liable to disciplinary action.
307.5 Proper execution of the trap is very important. The following important points should be kept in view :
(i) One or more responsible and impartial witness/witnesses must hear the conversation, which should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification. This would squarely meet the likely defence of the accused that the money was actually received as a loan or something else.
(ii) The transaction should be within the sight and hearing of the independent witness/witnesses.
(iii) There should be an opportunity to catch the culprit red-handed immediately after the bribe money has changed hands so that the accused may not be able to get rid of it.
(iv) The witnesses selected should not have appeared as witnesses in earlier cases of the department. It is safer to take as witness a Government employee who belongs to some other department.
(v) It is preferable to take a written complaint from the decoy. The complainant must specifically give the name of the person receiving the money, motive for receipt, the actual amount, date, time and place of the transaction.
307.6 Prior to the trap, the decoy should present the money, which he will give to the target officer/employee as bribe money on demand. A memo should be prepared by the investigating officer/inspector in the presence of the independent witnesses and the decoy indicating the numbers of the Government Currency (GC) Notes for legal and illegal transactions. This memo should be signed by the decoy, independent witness/witnesses and the investigating officer/inspector. Another memo, for returning the GC notes to the decoy, should be prepared for paying the bribe to the delinquent employee on demand. This memo should also be signed by the decoy, witnesses and the investigating officer/inspector. 307.7 At the time of the check, the independent witness/witnesses should take up position in such a place where they can see the transaction and also hear the conversation between the decoy and the delinquent employee, so as to satisfy themselves that money was demanded, given and accepted as bribe.
307.8 After money has been passed by the decoy to the delinquent employee as bribe, the investigating officer/inspector should disclose his identity and demand, in the presence of witnesses, to produce all money including private, Railway and bribe money. Then, the total money produced should be verified from relevant records and a memo be prepared for seizure of money. The recovered notes should be kept in an envelope, sealed in the presence of the witness, decoy, the accused and his immediate superior, who should be called as witness, in case the accused refuses to sign the recovery memo and sealing of notes in the envelope. It is crucial to seize supporting relevant documents immediately after the trap.
307.9 A site plan should also be prepared indicating the important features of the trap, namely, where the trap was laid, the position of witnesses, the delinquent official, the position of decoy and the relative distance from each other.
307.10 It is essential to follow the due procedure in cases of decoy checks. Procedural lapses enable the accused to get the benefit of doubt in the inquiry proceedings. Several cases of decoy checks have finally not resulted in the desired punishment on the employee because of these lapses.
307.11 It is essential that a successful decoy check should be followed to its logical conclusion, namely - the issue of a major penalty charge sheet which should eventually entail imposition of penalties of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from service. Rule 6 of the RS(D&A) Rules specifies dismissal/removal for proven cases of bribery & corruption. The disciplinary authority should not take up a position of misplaced sympathy for people who don't deserve it. If not, then the message that is conveyed to delinquent employees - present and potential
- is that 'anything goes' (sab chalta hai) and they can get away with just about anything. The Executive and Vigilance wings need to cooperate in making the tool of decoy checks a very effective deterrent to the wrongdoer, and not take up a confrontationist approach which would ultimately benefit him.
8. This is a case of departmental trap organized by the vigilance based on information received of demanding and collecting more money than Railway dues for allotment of vacant berths. The two witnesses should be independent witnesses as far as possible. A trap has a surprise element and arranging independent and willing witness at the spot when the action takes place, who has clear vision of action taking place in a crowded railway compartment and ensuring surprise element may be not feasible at all times. The above Rule 307 is an exhaustive list of trap case instructions which is required to be followed while planning and executing a trap case. Hence it is observed that the respondents instruction to RPF who were to provide witness who were independent of the respondent plan for laying the trap, was not for selection of witnesses by name as no particular constable was demanded. Further the organization requested to depute witnesses did not direct witnesses to contact any particular Travelling Ticket Examiner but gave them the freedom to contact any TTE for obtaining a berth. Thus though the trap was planned for a particular train and on a particular day and for a particular stretch of journey, no particular person was targetted and persons used as witnesses in the trap were given the freedom to verify the complaint of illegal gratification.
9. Thus there is evidence of the transaction made, the marked notes which the witness used to make payment and a RPF witness who observed the transaction made by the witness and applicant. The applicant has not produced any evidence that there was some definite interest in one of the parties during the inquiry proceedings. Further any Government servant should on a receipt of a sum higher than dues, return the excess without a specific demand for return of balance being made by the passenger making the payment. In this case demand made from witness was higher ie. Rs.320/- and the receipt given to witness was for a lower sum ie. Rs.240/-. There is, therefore, enough evidence that applicant collected a sum higher than railway dues and made no effort to return the excess. During the enquiry documents like extra fare ticket book, rough journal book, tickets with endorsement of applicant were shown and identified and applicant was given opportunity to defend his case before the inquiry officer. The respondents cite the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1709 of 1988 Union of India vs. Parmanand in support of its contention in the matter that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusions of the inquiry officer or competent authority is based on evidence. Respondents also refer to Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others vs. G.Ratna, and others 2007 (8) SCC 212. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under :
17. We shall now examine whether on the facts and the material available on record, non-adherence of the instructions as laid down in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual would invalidate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents and rendering the consequential orders of penalty imposed upon the respondents by the authorities, as held by the High Court in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the departmental traps were conducted by the investigating officers when the respondents were on official duty undertaking journey on trains going from one destination to another destination. The Tribunal in its order noticed that the decoy passengers deployed by the investigation officers were RPF Constables in whose presence the respondents allegedly collected excess amount for arranging sleeper class reservation accommodation etc. to the passengers. The transaction between the decoy passengers and the respondents was reported to have been witnessed by the RPF Constables. In the facts and circumstances of the matters, the Tribunal held that the investigations were conducted by the investigating officers in violation of the mandatory Instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, on the basis of which inquiries were held by the Enquiry Officer which finally resulted in the imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the Railway Authority. The High Court in its impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Reports in the absence of joining any independent witnesses in the departmental traps, are found inadequate and where the Instructions relating to such departmental trap cases are not fully adhered to, the punishment imposed upon the basis of such defective traps are not sustainable under law. The High Court has observed that in the present cases the service of some RPF Constables and Railway staff attached to the Vigilance Wing were utilised as decoy passengers and they were also associated as witnesses in the traps.
The RPF Constables, in no terms, can be said to be independent witnesses and non association of independent witnesses by the investigating officers in the investigation of the departmental trap cases has caused prejudice to the rights of the respondents in their defence before the Enquiry Officers.
18. We are not inclined to agree that the non-adherence of the mandatory Instructions and Guidelines contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual has vitiated the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents by the Railway Authority. In our view, such finding and reasoning are wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22. It is by now well-settled that 'The purposes of departmental inquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. [see Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. Sarvesh Berry, SCC p. 472f-g].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
24. On consideration of the foregoing facts and in the teeth of the legal aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996 are procedural in character and not of a substantive nature. The violation thereof, if any, by the investigating officer in conducting departmental trap cases would not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents on the basis of the complaints submitted by the investigating officers to the railway authorities. The instructions as contemplated under paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual have been issued not for the information of the accused in the criminal proceedings or the delinquent in the departmental proceedings, but for the information and guidance of the investigating officers.
10. Respondents also refer to judgment of 14.3.1989 in Civil Appeal No.1709 of 1988 (Union of India vs. Parmanand) wherein the Apex Court made the following observations :
(a) The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment can not be equated with an appellate jurisdiction.
(b) The Tribunal can not interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer or competent authority unless they are arbitrary or perverse.
(c) If there has been enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
(d) If a penalty can be lawfully imposed and is imposed on the proof of misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion.
The adequacy of penalty, unless it is malafide is not a matter of Tribunals to be concerned with. This view has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Smarendra Kishore Endow (1994) 1 SLR 516 and Union of India vs. Upendra Singh (1994) 27 ATC 2000.
(e) The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusions of the inquiry officer or competent authority are based on evidence, some of which may be irrelevant or extraneous.
(f) As an exception to the above, where a person is dismissed, removed etc. under Rule 14 (I) of RS (D&A) Rules solely on the basis of conviction by a criminal court, the Tribunal may examine the adequacy of the penalty or its reasonableness having regard to the nature of the criminal charges.
11. This is a case where the vigilance department has made an attempt to verify facts of information of collection of charges in excess of railway dues by laying a trap. The important element to be considered are integrity of the process and evidence gathered. Integrity of the process has been ensured by not deputing particular witness but leaving it to the RPF to depute any constable to contact any TTE in a particular train between a particular stretch of journey as per the procedure laid down thereby averting allegations of prejudice. The evidence was ensured through marked notes and a second constable was present as witness to the incident. Examining the detailed content of the enquiry proceedings and report is not the mandate of this Tribunal. This function is allocated to the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisionary authority who are authorized to take a decision in the disciplinary matter. There were two witnesses, one of whom acted as decoy passenger cum witness and the second witnessed the incident and the said incident took place in the presence of the two persons. In Monishankar's case the court was of the view that it is safe to take witness who are government employees and of other departments. The two RPF constables were government employees and RPF is a different wing than the TTE who belongs to the traffic wing of the Railways. This was a departmental trap case and Monishankar's case held that the services of non-gazetted staff can be utilized. The decoy customer had used prepared notes which were recovered from the applicant. The trap was laid by the railway vigilance with assistance from RPF and the disciplinary proceedings were processed by the Traffic Wing to which the applicant belonged. Hence the allegation of collusion for the purpose of revenge, bias or prejudicial action by witness or respondent is overruled.
12. The respondent is a large organization with several independent wings, which traverses the length and breadth of the country and handles transportation needs of the public in the country. It is necessary for officials of such an organization to not only maintain integrity and also take action against those who violate this integrity. Railway as a transport medium is used by the low and middle class of citizens in the country who can ill afford any form of excess payment and may be doing so in the event of adversity to move from place to place at short notice or urgency to attend to family and other needs. Hence the respondents in order to ensure integrity of the system has to ensure that checks of a surprise nature and traps are laid to stem illegal gratification. Applicant has picked irrelevant holes in the enquiry report but has not produced witnesses or evidence to prove his innocence during the enquiry proceedings. In the O.A as a post mortem he is adducing various reasons why he should not be convicted of the charges which reasons he should have submitted during enquiry proceedings to prove his innocence. The amount of gratification is small but the motive of applicant to allot available vacant seats on receipt of gratification was reflective of his absence of integrity and devotion to duty.
13. The applicant has not been denied justice as the applicant had participated in the disciplinary proceedings held and he has not been punished unheard and had a chance for both trial and appeal. Reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the applicant to state his defence. There is no lacuna in the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate/Revisional Authority. Scope of judicial review is limited to deficiency in the decision making process and in the case there is no indication of any prejudice, malafide or bias on the part of the witness, Inquiry Officer or the line up of the Disciplinary Authority in the case.
14. Accordingly the O.A is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 19th day of November 2015)
P.GOPINATH N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp