Madras High Court
Union Of India vs The Registrar on 19 July, 2013
Bench: R.Banumathi, T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :- 19.07.2013 Coram The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.32241 of 2012 1.Union of India, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Salem. 2.Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Salem. 3.Deputy Commercial Manager, (wrongly shown as Deputy Commercial Manager), Southern Railway, Salem. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104. 2.M.Devan ... Respondents Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records of the first respondent in O.A.No.672 of 2010, including the award dated 11.07.2012 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, Senior counsel for Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar For Respondents : Mr.Mr.Balan Haridas For R2 ***** O R D E R
R.BANUMATHI, J. & T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.No.672 of 2010, dated 11.07.2012.
2. The second respondent was the applicant before the Tribunal and the applicant challenged the order passed by the third petitioner herein dated 20.02.2009, as confirmed by the second petitioner, by order dated 20.07.2009 and by the first petitioner, by order dated 26.03.2010. By the said orders, which were impugned before the Tribunal, the second respondent was imposed with penalty of removal from service, which was confirmed by the appellate as well as the reviewing the authority.
3. The Tribunal by order dated 11.07.2012, allowed the Original Application and set aside the penalty of removal from service imposed on the second respondent and directed to treat the second respondent as deemed to be in service from the date of removal i.e., 20.02.2009, till the date of his normal retirement, namely, 28.02.2009 and direction was issued to release all retiral benefits, within a period of three months. The petitioners/the Railway Administration is aggrieved by the said order and have challenged the same in this writ petition.
4. The facts that are necessary for the purpose of this case could be briefly stated as hereunder. The second respondent was a Casual Labourer and was granted temporary status during April 1978. Subsequently, he was empanelled for regular absorption as Porter in the Traffic Department and later as L.R.Porter at Jolarpet from 1983. During 1986, he was temporarily promoted as Pointsman 'B' and thereafter, promoted as Ticket Collector during August 1986 and was posted in the Chennai Division. During March 1990, the second respondent was promoted as Senior Ticket Collector and further promoted as Head Ticket Collector/Head Ticket Examiner during November 2003. At the relevant point of time, the second respondent was working as Head Ticket Examiner and operating Excess Fare Ticket Counter at Chennai Central.
5. A departmental check was conducted by the Vigilance Department of the Railway Administration on 16.05.2008. This led to the issuance of a charge sheet to the second respondent under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The second respondent was informed by the disciplinary authority that he proposed to hold an enquiry against the second respondent under Rule 9 of the Rules on the imputation of misconduct as set out in the statement of articles of charge as annexure 1 and statement of imputation of misconduct as annexure 2, and the charge related to acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.500/- and being in possession of excess cash.
6. The second respondent was placed under suspension with effect from 17.05.2008. The second respondent submitted his explanation denying the charge. The order of suspension was revoked on 01.08.2008 and the second respondent was transferred to Salem Division. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry, in which the second respondent appointed a defence helper to assist him and the management appointed a Presenting Officer. In the domestic enquiry five witnesses were examined on the side of the department and documents were marked, however the second respondent did not examine any defence witness nor examined himself. The enquiry officer submitted his findings on 28.01.2009 holding that the charges are proved. The second respondent was given an opportunity to submit further representation and after considering the materials, the disciplinary authority removed the second respondent from service, by order dated 20.02.2009. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. The second respondent filed O.A.No.672 of 2010, before the Tribunal challenging the order of removal.
7. It was contended before the Tribunal that in the domestic enquiry the source of alleged complaint against the applicant was not disclosed and no material was placed to show that there had been any complaint at all and the initiation of proceedings with a decoy is malafide and illegal. Further, it was contended that it is the case of the decoy that the second respondent demanded Rs.500/- for him and advised to give Rs.300/- to the TTE for arranging the berth and if the same was true, the Vigilance could have contacted the coach TTE and this was not done. The co-employee of the second respondent, Station Master on duty and the Deputy Station Master on duty were not examined as witnesses deliberately to hide the truth, the CC TV footage was not produced, the cell phone conversation were not traced and the decoy S.R.Chandrasekaran has been used by the Vigilance on various occasions and therefore, his statement is untrust worthy. Further, during the domestic enquiry, the second respondent demonstrated that S.R.Chandrasekaran, the decoy (SW-1) and K.V.Pramothkumar (SW-5) had given false statement before the enquiry officer. It was further contended that it is the case of no evidence and the Vigilance had attempted to fix the applicant on imaginary allegations and on the basis of non-existing fact situation. Further, it was contended that the enquiry officer did not properly consider the explanation given by the second respondent regarding the cash, which was in his possession.
8. The petitioners, who were the respondents before the Tribunal filed a reply statement denying and disputing the contentions raised by the second respondent.
9. The Tribunal did not consider the factual questions raised before it regarding the enquiry proceedings, but proceeded to hold that the entire proceedings has occurred on the basis of the departmental test (Vigilance) and there is no basis for the decoy proceedings, which is fictitious not consistent with law. The Tribunal further held that from a perusal of the imputation of misconduct shows that the action lies on the source information and when there is a particular charge against the second respondent, which is a serious charge of corruption, the respondent ought to have acted based on any particular complaint instead of acting on the so called source information. With the above observations, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application and set aside the order of removal and directed the release of the retirement benefits to the second respondent, by order dated 11.07.2012, which is impugned in this writ petition.
10. Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar learned counsel for the petitioners after referring to the facts stated supra, referred to the findings of the enquiry officer, submitted that the enquiry officer in his report has elaborately discussed this aspect more particularly in paragraph 8.1 of the report and submitted that there is no necessity for any specific written complaint to be received for the Vigilance to conduct a check and in the domestic enquiry, it was proved that the second respondent was in possession of the money and the currency numbers tallied with the balance currencies and these were all marked as documents in the enquiry proceedings. Further, it is submitted that the second respondent had been taken inconsistent plea as regards the money recovered from him. In the written brief submitted by the second respondent dated 27.01.2009, he stated that he received the money from SW-1, since it was stated that his friend Sathi returned the money, which he had borrowed from him long back. After the receipt of the copy of the findings of the enquiry officer, the second respondent submitted a further representation dated 11.02.2009. In the said representation, he stated that SW-1, gave Rs.500/- that it was given by Sathi, and immediately left the spot and when the Vigilance checked him, he did not produce this Rs.500/- immediately because of the fear to Vigilance. In the memorandum of appeal preferred to the appellate authority dated 25.03.2009, the second respondent contended that SW-1 thrust Rs.500/- as if, it was due by his friend Sathi. In the revision petition filed as against the order passed by the appellate authority dated 01.09.2009, the second respondent stated that Rs.500/- was put on the table of the EFT counter and told that the friend of the second respondent asked him to hand over the money to him and before the Tribunal, he stated that a person came to the counter and gave Rs.500/- stating it was given by Sathi, who was the friend of the second respondent. By referring to these averments, the learned counsel submitted that the second respondent was pleading an inconsistent case and the Tribunal without reference to the findings of the enquiry officer merely proceeded on the question that the department should not have proceeded based on source information, but only on actual complaint. It is reiterated that there is no necessity for a complaint from an aggrieved person for conducting a test check and there is no bar for using a railway employee as a decoy. Further, the second respondent did not examine his friend Sathi, who is said to have given the money and this has been pointed out by the revisional authority in his order dated 26.03.2010.
11. Inspite of all these factual details having placed before the Tribunal in the form of a reply statement, the Tribunal without taking note of the fact that Vigilance organisation functioned basically on source information and departmental test check is normally conducted to verify the authenticity and there is no requirement to receive a written complaint from the source to verify the authenticity of the complaint. The learned counsel referred to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala J.Jhala vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., [(2013) 4 SCC 301], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the legal issues as regards the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and scope of judicial review of this Court in such matters.
12. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that SW-1 is a regular decoy and he made a false statement before the enquiry officer regarding the question as to whether he has acted in a similar fashion in any earlier check. Even when it was found that SW-1 had been a decoy in other checks conducted by Vigilance and the second respondent established in the domestic enquiry that SW-1 has given false statement, the enquiry officer in paragraph 8.2. of the report (findings) sought to justify the statement of management witness. Further, it was contended that though it was stated that SW-1 contacted the second respondent over mobile phone several times, the conversation was not recorded as admitted during the enquiry. Further, the best evidence would have been the CC TV footage, which was deliberately not produced in the enquiry. The evidence of SW-2 ought not to have been relied on as he was a Porter waiting to be regularised and at the mercy of the officials and no credence, should be given to the statement SW-2. Further, the cell phone details could have been produced to show that SW-1 called the second respondent five times. The learned counsel elaborately referred to the chief examination of the SW-4 and the deposition the other department witnesses and submitted that the demand of Rs.500/- was not established and the acceptance was not established and considering all these factors together with the fact that the second respondent unblemished record of service, this Court should confirm the decision of the Tribunal by assigning additional reasons, since the Tribunal did not examine all issues. In support of his contentions that in a case of no evidence, no action could be initiated reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Jain Bhagwan, [(2011) 6 SCC 376] . The learned counsel also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards the degree of proof required in a charge of corruption, Union of India, vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, [(2009) 12 SCC 78]; LIC vs, Ram Pal Singh Bisen, [(2010) 4 SCC 491]; Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney, [(2009) 1SCC (L&S) 806]; and Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab Natinal Banks and Ors., [(2009) 2 SCC 570].
13. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and carefully considered the submissions made and the materials placed on record.
14. The second respondent was issued a charge sheet dated 30.10.2008, containing the following articles of charge and the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charge, which reads as follows:-
Charges:-
Shri.M.Devan, CTI/SA while working as the at EFT counter/MA6 on 16.05.2008 had failed to maintain absolute integrity, show devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant in that:-
(1) He had demanded and collected Rs.500/- from Shri.S.R.Chandrasekaran, HBC/TPJ on the pretext of arranging accommodation in Sleeper Class ex.MAS-TUP by Train No.2671 of 16.05.2008.
(2) He had an excess of Rs.605/- in his personal cash.
By the above aforesaid acts Shri.M.Devan, CTI/SA (then HTE/MAS) had contravened the provisions of Article 3.1 (i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966.
Statement of imputation (brief extract):-
Based on source information that Shri.M.Devan, ticket checking staff working at Excess fare ticket counter/MAS is demanding and collecting money from passengers with sleeper class wait listed ticket for arranging accommodation in trains leaving MAS towards CBE either by emergency quota or by his proximity with TTEs manning sleeper coaches in trains, a department test check was proposed.
15. The second respondent denied the charge resulting in a domestic enquiry being conducted. Five witnesses were examined on the side of the department as SW-1 to SW-5. The second respondent did not offer himself to be examined as a witness nor he examined any defence witness, but was rest content with the submissions made in the written defence brief. SW-1 who was also a Railway employee was the decoy, who has paid the sum of Rs.500/- to the second respondent for confirming a sleeper class ticket.
16. From a perusal of the enquiry officer's report, it is evident that the second respondent who availed the assistance of a defence helper cross examined the department witnesses SW-1 to SW-5. Further, there is no challenge by the second respondent to the manner in which the domestic enquiry was conducted nor there is any contention raised before this Court that there has been any technical violation committed by the enquiry officer or there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, we hold that the departmental proceedings was conducted in a proper manner and full and effective opportunity was afforded to the second respondent. Despite opportunity, the second respondent did not choose to examine himself nor produce any defence witnesses.
17. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the matter, but held that a charge of demand and receipt of bribe could not have been based upon a source information without any specific complaint of such allegation. The Tribunal by relying upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India, vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, [(2009) 12 SCC 78], held that the charge of corruption being serious requires to be proved to the hilt and the department ought to have acted on the basis of definite material such as complaint made by passengers instead of acting on so called 'source information'. The Tribunal did not consider as to whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, whether there was evidence to prove the charge and whether the Tribunal could ignore the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent agrees that the Tribunal did not go into the merits of the case, but this Court can assign additional reasons to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal.
19. On a perusal of the entire material pertaining to the enquiry and a careful reading of the deposition of witnesses and the report of the enquiry officer, it appears that the Vigilance department of the Railways has adopted the procedure normally adopted by the Police authorities in trap cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
20. As noticed above, there were two charges framed against the second respondent, one relating to the demand and collection of Rs.500/- and the other for having held excess of Rs.605/- as personal cash. The Railway administration would justify their test check based on information that the second respondent is demanding and collecting money from passengers with sleeper class wait listed ticket for arranging accommodation in trains. For this purpose, SW-1 was asked to contact the second respondent as to whether he can arrange accommodation in a train on 16.05.2008 and the second respondent agreed to arrange accommodation and asked SW-1 to buy a sleeper class wait listed ticket and informed the PNR number to him. This information is said to have been asked by SW-1 through his cell phone at 12.38 hours on 15.05.2008 to the cell phone of the second respondent. As instructed by the second respondent, the Vigilance asked SW-1 to buy a sleeper class ticket, which was accordingly done and the PNR number was given over phone to the second respondent at 14.53 hours. That the second respondent instructed SW-1, to be available at MAS at 20.00 hours on 16.05.2008. A proceedings recording all the above mentioned details was drawn at the Vigilance office of the Railways on 15.05.2008.
21. After making such a record of the proceedings on 16.05.2008, SW-1 contacted the second respondent and asked him whether he could arrange accommodation for one more person, who would accompany him in the same train. The second respondent informed SW-1 to buy a ticket in the same train and assured accommodation. Accordingly, SW-1 was directed to buy a sleeper class ticket in the name of SW-2 who would accompany SW-1 as a independent witness. The PNR number of such ticket was informed to the second respondent at 12.55 hours on 16.05.2008, but the second respondent did not take the details of the ticket, but asked SW-1 to contact him at 19.30 hours to know the place of meeting and when SW-1 asked about the money to be given for arranging accommodation, for which the second respondent stated you come, we will see later. The above details have also been drawn in the form of a proceedings by the Vigilance on 16.05.2008 .
22. SW-1 and SW-2 were directed to meet the second respondent for arranging accommodation. All the personal cash of SW-1 amounting to Rs.300/- was taken over by the Chief Vigilance Inspector and SW-1 was given a sum of Rs.1000/- in the denomination of Rs.100X8 and Rs.50X4. The currency numbers along with PNR numbers of the both the tickets were noted down. SW-1 was asked to contact the second respondent and he was instructed to pay money to second respondent only on specific demand and SW-1 & SW-2 were instructed to inform the Vigilance. On getting the information from SW-2, second respondent had written the coach and berth number on the tickets, demanded and collected Rs.500/- from SW-1 when the Vigilance team entered the scene. Since, the second respondent was in the Excess Fare Ticket Counter, which was crowded, he was asked to come to another room and produce his personal cash and railway cash. The second respondent produced Rs.130/- as personal cash and stated that he had no railway cash. However, in the declaration given to the department, he had declared only Rs.25/- as his personal cash. Therefore, there was an excess of Rs.105/-. It is only thereafter, the second respondent produced Rs.500/- in the denomination of Rs.100X5 from his back pant pocket and when he was asked as to why this cash was not declared he stated that this amount was given by his friend Sathi. The proceedings which were drawn by the Vigilance cell on 15.05.2008 and 16.05.2008, were shown to the second respondent and he read the same and made an endorsement for having seen those proceedings. Statement was also recorded from SW-1 and SW-2. Further, the serial number of the five Rs.100 currency notes which was recovered from the second respondent which he stated was his personal cash tallied with the currency note numbers, which were recorded by the Vigilance on 15.5.2008 (Vide Ex.S4) prior to being given to SW-2.
23. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that based on some information, the Vigilance has acted and conducted the check. The findings of the Tribunal that the Vigilance could not have acted on a source information, but should have taken action only based on a specific complaint is the finding to be rejected for the simple reason that the scope and jurisdiction of a Vigilance Cell in any department would become redundant if such interpretation is given. Therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in quashing the order of removal solely on this ground.
24. Recovery of Rs.500/- (Mo1 series) the same currency recorded in Ex.S4 from the second respondent is a strong piece of evidence against the second respondent. The perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings makes it evidently clear that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge and the second respondent was unable to cull out any vital fact or discrepancy while cross examining SW-1 to SW-5. Furthermore, the evidence of SW-1 cannot be rejected solely on the ground that he was a railway employee and that he was a decoy in an earlier test conducted by the Vigilance.
25. From the facts stated above, it is seen that initially the second respondent did not declare the said Rs.500/- as his personal cash. It is to be noted that the second respondent was working in a cash counter for collecting excess fare. Therefore, he was required to declare his personal cash prior to entering duty. Such declaration was made only for Rs.25/-. The second respondent was unable to explain the balance amount of Rs.105/-. It is much thereafter, the second respondent disclosed that he had Rs.500/- and he stated that this money was given to him by his friend Sathi. However, the said Sathi was not examined by the second respondent to establish such a plea. At this stage, it has to be noted that the said Rs.500/- were five Rs.100/- notes and the currency numbers tallied with the numbers recorded in the Vigilance proceedings prior to handing over to SW-2. Therefore, there is enough evidence to hold the second respondent was guilty of the charge.
26. As this stage, it would be necessary to take note of the degree of proof which is required in a departmental enquiry. In the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the legal position has been clearly laid down. In Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings is a quasi-judicial proceedings, the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, the charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved and the enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record. After laying down such proposition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered in the said case, on the ground no witnesses were examined to prove the documents and the management witness in the said case merely tendered the document and did not prove the contents thereof. However, the case on hand is not one such case.
27. In Union of India vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a charge of corruption held as follows:-
21. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi-criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities.
31. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari1 this Court held as under:
4.In a case of such natureindeed, in cases involving corruptionthere cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam2, U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti5, Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma6, NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh7 and U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar8, wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service. Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences.
28. As held in the above decision, a charge of corruption being quasi criminal requires to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt and cannot be proved on mere probabilities. It was also held that in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service.
29. In Commissioner of Police vs. Jain Bhagwan (2011) 6 SCC 376, the appeal arose out of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent therein, who was a Constable in the Delhi Police where the High Court of Delhi set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The charge against the Constable was having accepted Rs.100/-, as bribe. After analyzing the evidence which was available in the departmental enquiry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the department did not examine any witness to prove and establish that the Constable received Rs.100/- as illegal gratification and proof of taking such illegal gratification has been drawn from the evidence of returning Rs.100/- to the complainant by way of a link-up. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court lends no support to the case of the second respondent, as the facts as noted above are couched in entirely different circumstances.
30. The theory as projected by the second respondent that Rs.500/- was his personal cash given to him by Mr.Sathi was not established by examining the said Mr.Sathi. Undoubtedly, the initial burden is on the department to establish the charge. This having been done by examining SW-1 to SW-5 who were cross examined by the second respondent, the burden shifts on the second respondent to establish that the amount of Rs.500/- which was in his possession and recovered by the Vigilance was his personal cash. This aspect of the matter was not established or proved by the second respondent. Thus, the case on hand is not a case, where the enquiry officer recorded a finding of fact on probabilities, but it was on the basis of evidence available during the enquiry.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala J.Jhala vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., [(2013) 4 SCC 301], summarised the standard of proof required in a departmental enquiry on the following terms:-
17. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial, and in spite of this fact that the same are quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal, doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt, does not apply in such cases, but the principles of preponderance of probabilities would apply. The court has to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent had committed a misconduct. However, the said conclusion should be reached on the basis of test of what a prudent person would have done......
32. By applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has to be seen whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent had committed a misconduct. The evidence which was available on record, which was referred to by the enquiry officer in his findings, have been culled out in the earlier portion of this order and it is sufficient to hold that the second respondent committed the misconduct.
33. In the same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the scope of judicial review in such matters and held as follows:-
24...... Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the authority can be raised/examined, nor the question of re-appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness of the order under challenge. If there are sufficient grounds for passing an order, then even if one of them is found to be correct, and on its basis the order impugned can be passed, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere.....
34. In terms of the above referred decision, we are not expected to consider as to whether there was sufficient evidence nor could this Court re-appreciate the evidence and the jurisdiction is circumscribed to correct errors of law or procedural error. The second respondent has not been able to point out any error of law nor any contention was raised by the second respondent alleging procedural error. Nevertheless, we have examined the evidence, which was available on record and we have no hesitation to hold that it was sufficient to come to a conclusion that the second respondent is guilty of the misconduct. The disciplinary authority after considering the entire matter recorded his satisfaction that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer deserves acceptance. We are not inclined to accept the contention that the disciplinary authority did not apply his mind. Furthermore, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority by assigning independent reasons. The second respondent has been harping upon that the department did not examine the Station Master, the Deputy Station Master, did not produce the CC TV footage. It is not forthcoming as to why the second respondent did not examine himself or the said Mr.Sathi nor made an attempt to examine his co-employees namely, the Station Master and Deputy Station Master as his witnesses. We are not here to examine the sufficiency of evidence.
35. In view of the above discussion and the reasons assigned, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
36. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.672 of 2010, dated 11.07.2012, is set aside and the punishment of removal from service imposed on the second respondent is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.B.I., J.) (T.S.S., J.) 19.07. 2013
pbn
Index : Yes
Website : Yes
R.BANUMATHI, J.
and T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pbn
To
The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai 600 104.
Order in
W.P.No.32241 of 2012
19.07.2013