Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Anuj B Pathak vs M/O Railways on 6 February, 2026
1 OA No.542/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.542/2017
Dated this Friday the 06th February, 2026
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Anuj B. Pathak
Age 38 years, presently working
as Head Goods Clerk at Kalyan
Railway Station, Central Railway
And residing at C-9/103, Florida
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Yogi Dham, Gouri Pada Road,
Kalyan West. District
Thane - 421 321. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Ramesh Ramamurthy)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the
General Manager, Central Railway,
Head Quarters, Mumbai CST,
Mumbai - 400 001.
2. The Divisional Commercial
Manager (COG), Central Railway,
Mumbai Division, Commercial
Branch, Mumbai CST, Mumbai - 1.
3. The Officer on Special Duty (S)
Commercial Branch, Mumbai
Division, Central Railway,
Divisional Office, Mumbai CST,
Mumbai - 400 001.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
4. The Chief Commercial Manager
Milan Jackson
(PS), Central Railway, Head
0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone=
30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f
1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba
bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso
Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
2 OA No.542/2017
Quarters, Mumbai CST, Mumbai - 1. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri P. Khosla)
Order reserved on : 18.12.2025
Order pronounced on: 06.02.2026
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to quash and set aside the order dated 28.07.2015 (Annexure A-
1) of the Disciplinary Authority, order dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Revising Authority and order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure A-3) of the respondent No.4 rejecting the appeal against the enhanced punishment and further direction to the respondents to restore the applicant to his original position.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Senior Booking Clerk at Kalyan in the year 2014. There was vigilance check on 23.04.2014, during which, it is stated to have overcharged Rs.20 from a passenger who was witness and further excess Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= cash of Rs.45 was found in the Railway cash with him. 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 3 OA No.542/2017 Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has issued a charge memorandum dated 21.07.2014 which culminated in the passing of impugned order dated 28.07.2015 by which the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of "Reduction by three stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of four years with postponement of future increment".
2.1 The Revising Authority issued show cause notice to the applicant for revision of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as he was of the view that the punishment awarded to the applicant was inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of the charge levelled. Therefore, he enhanced the penalty to that of "Reduction by three stages in the same time scale of pay for period of 7 years with postponement of future increment". The applicant filed appeal against the order of Revisionary Authority on 08.01.2016. The Appellate Authority vide speaking order dated 01.07.2016 which was communicated to the applicant by covering letter dated 13.07.2016 rejected the appeal of the applicant. Aggrieved by the above orders, the applicant has filed this OA. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 4 OA No.542/2017
3. It is the case of the applicant that the allegation of overcharging of Rs.20/- and excess of Rs.45 in the Railway cash are not true and there was no material to issue the charge memorandum to the applicant. It has been submitted that on 23.04.2014, the vigilance team had deployed a decoy passenger to purchase tickets at the booking office at Kalyan Railway Station to verify whether the booking clerks at the counters were over charging the passengers. The vigilance team had also deployed an independent witness to witness the transaction between the booking clerk and the decoy passenger. In the present case of the applicant the decoy passenger was Madhukar T. Sonawane, PW6 and the independent witness was Kishan Gangaram PW7.
3.1 It is submitted by the applicant that he had not over charged any passenger, whether it is a decoy passenger or independent witness in excess of the fare printed on the tickets purchased by the said two passengers. The entire case is a fabricated case by the vigilance to make up their quota of vigilance cases in a month. The evidence in the enquiry would show that Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso the said two witness decoy passenger and independent DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 5 OA No.542/2017 passenger were working as Class IV employees and were not even literate and they have not supported the allegations in the charge sheet. In a pre-planned check as per the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual Rules 704 and 705 the Vigilance Department is required to engage the service of only Gazetted Officers for such purpose. The entire raid was done in violation of the Rules and violation of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maoni Shankar's case.
3.2 It has been submitted that the applicant gave a reply dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure A-5) to the respondent No.2- Disciplinary Authority denying all the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet memorandum. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority, who was an Inquiry Officer from the Vigilance Branch of Central Railway. No presenting Officer was appointed in the said enquiry. In case of the applicant, his choice of defence Assistant was approved and allowed by the Disciplinary Authority under letter dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure A-6). Under the charge sheet memorandum issued to the applicant, out of 7 witnesses the first Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso 4 witnesses were all from the Vigilance Department, DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 6 OA No.542/2017 the 5th witness was the Chief Booking Supervisor at Kalyan Station on that day and the 6th and 7th witnesses were the decoy passenger and the independent witness respectively. No Presenting Officer was appointed by the Railways to conduct the proceedings in the charge sheet and the Inquiry Officer was acting as Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer in dual capacity and all the questions were put to the witnesses by the Inquiry officer himself and effectively it was a case of the Inquiry Officer being the Prosecutor and the Judge in the same case. The preliminary enquiry was conducted on 09th October, 2014.
3.3 It has been submitted that the regular enquiry under the charge sheet commenced on 05th November, 2014.
On the first day itself the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 who are all Vigilance Officers and the evidence of PW5, the Chief Booking Supervisor were recorded on the same day. In case of all the said 4 witnesses, their examination-in-chief was conducted by the Inquiry Officer since no Presenting Officer was appointed by the Railways to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the Railways. The questions asked in examination-in- Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Chief to the said 4 witnesses would show that the DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 7 OA No.542/2017 questions asked and the answers recorded are identical. The same indicates the illegality in the entire conduct of the enquiry by the Inquiry officer. Only one extra question was asked to PQ1 Chief Vigilance Inspector namely question No.2 where the said witness has accepted that the statements of decoy passenger and independent witness being Exhibits 10 and 11 were written by Suhas Potdar Constable, R.P.F., Vigilance and the said statements were as recorded by the Chief Vigilance Inspector. Therefore, it is clear that the statements of the said two witnesses PW6 and PW7 were not their own statements and were as dictated and recorded by the vigilance. More importantly, the said Suhas Potdar Constable, RPF, Vigilance has not been examined in the enquiry nor cited as witness to prove whether he had recorded the statements as told by the witnesses or as dictated by the Vigilance. The evidence of the said witnesses PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 recorded on 05.11.2014 (Annexure A-8).
3.4 It has been submitted that the evidence of PW2, Chief Vigilance Inspector Jitendra Yadav was recorded on 09.12.2014 (Annexure A-9) by the Inquiry Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Officer. In respect of the said witness also the two DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 8 OA No.542/2017 questions asked were identical to the questions asked to the first 4 witnesses and the answers were also identical recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The witness PW6 and PW7 did not remain present for 3 dates i.e. on 09.01.2015, 12.02.2015 and 12.03.2015 and the enquiry was adjourned for their evidence on these three dates and the evidence of these two witnesses were recorded on 27.03.2015. The evidence of PW6 and PW7 which were recorded on 27.03.2015, if seen, would show that the questions and answers are as recorded by the Inquiry Officer and they are not the answers given by the said witnesses. The said evidence would reveal that the decoy passenger is 5th standard pass and the independent witness PW7 is not even literate. The evidence of the said two witnesses would show that there is no substance or basis for leveling the charges against the applicant in the charge sheet. In fact, the evidence given by the PW7 would cancel the allegations in Article of Charge No.1 about over charging the said PW7 Independent witness Kishan Gangaram since the said witness has admitted in his evidence that he has not checked the ticket or the balance amount returned by Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso the applicant before leaving the counter. Further, the DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 9 OA No.542/2017 said witness has also admitted that the statements were prepared in the booking office and he was merely called to sign and the same indicates that the witness is not aware of what is the statement which is recorded in his name. Similarly, both the said witnesses PW6 and PW7 have stated that they have not witnessed the transactions between the booking clerk i.e the applicant herein and the decoy passenger/independent witness, as the case may be.
3.5 It has been submitted that thereafter on 27.03.2015, he was generally examined by the Inquiry Officer regarding the evidence against the applicant in the enquiry. In the said general examination also, the applicant has denied the charges and requested for time to submit the defence brief. The excess amount of Rs.45/- mentioned in the article of charge No.2 was a clerical error due to heavy rush since on that date the total collection of Railway cash was Rs.99,275/-
and the mistake would be at the most a clerical mistake and in in terms of the Indian Railway Commercial Manuel para 708, 709 and 710 the excess amount has been remitted to Sundry Account and no misconduct has been Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso accepted by the applicant.
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 10 OA No.542/2017 3.6 The applicant also filed his defence brief in the matter dated 10.04.2015 to the Inquiry Officer. In the defence brief also, the applicant has not admitted the charge and has extensively pointed out from the evidence how article of charge No.1 and 2 are not proved. By referring to various provisions of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual and other Rules and even in respect of Rs.45/- found excess in Railway cash as per the article of Charge No.2, the applicant has mentioned that it was a clerical error/tallying error and has not accepted the misconduct alleged in respect of the said incident. The contents of the defence brief be treated as part of this OA to avoid repetition. 3.7 It has been further submitted that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure A-14) to the respondent No.2 Disciplinary Authority and the report was forwarded to the applicant under covering letter dated 21.05.2015 by the Disciplinary Authority - respondent No.2. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has held both the charges as proved. Though the inquiry report appears elaborate, but if the contents are seen, it would be Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso clear that the Inquiry Officer is conveniently DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 11 OA No.542/2017 recording those parts of the evidence and referring to documents which are not proved and which would be convenient to hold the charges proved. The evidence in favour of the applicant is being conveniently ignored to avoid giving a finding of not guilty in favour of the applicant. The report of the Inquiry Officer is perverse since if the finding recorded in para 8 relating to the deposition of PW7 independent witness is seen then the Inquiry Officer could not have recorded a finding holding article of charge No.1 as proved. Similarly, the Inquiry Officer is deliberately without any reasoning brushing aside all the objections taken by the applicant to the defects in the evidence led on behalf of the Railways in the departmental enquiry.
3.8 It has been submitted that he had specifically pointed out that the decoy passenger and independent witness had well defined the roles in as much as a decoy passenger is supposed to purchase the tickets from the counter and the independent witness is supposed to witness the said transaction to corroborate and confirm the said action. In the present case, the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso decoy passenger has purchased the tickets but since DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 12 OA No.542/2017 the balance returned by the applicant was correct, the said surprise vigilance failed on that count and, therefore, no charge is leveled in respect of any transaction with the decoy passenger. It is only because of the failure of the decoy check with the decoy passenger that the independent witness is also asked to purchase the ticket thereby turning the independent witness also into a decoy passenger. More importantly, there is no person to witness the said transaction of the independent witness PW7 Kishan Gangaram purchasing the ticket from the applicant and there is no corroboration of the said action and evidence of the independent witness by any person since admittedly the decoy passenger and the independent witness i.e. PW6 and PW7 respectively have admitted in their evidence that they did not witness the actions or transactions of each other. Similarly, the Vigilance Officers were nowhere near the booking counter and they were thus no eye witness to the said transaction admittedly. Therefore, it is a clear case of a fabricated case put up by the vigilance to somehow justify the purpose of the surprise check on 23.04.2014 Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso conducted at Kalyan Railway Station.
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 13 OA No.542/2017 3.9 It has been submitted that the Inquiry Officer is brushing aside this evidence and using the evidence of the decoy passenger and independent witness by deliberate misinterpretation and stating that no rule is pointed out by the Applicant which prevents the Vigilance from using the said two persons in different roles. The question arises that when the Test Check Memo-1 was prepared on 23.04.2014 at Thane Railway Station prior to proceeding for the surprise check at Kalyan Railway Station the vigilance team had recorded in the Test Check Memo (Pre-Trap Panchnama) that P.W.6 will be used as decoy passenger and P.W.7 Kishan Gangaram will be used as independent witness. It appears that the Test Check Memo has been changed or modified after the failure of the decoy check through the decoy passenger and to make out a case as if the independent witness was also asked to act as decoy passenger. More importantly if the so-called independent witness P.W.7 Kishan Gangram did not witness the transaction between P.W.6 decoy passenger and the Applicant then there is no independent witness for the said transaction. Similarly, the issue as to Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso who took the decision to utilize the independent DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 14 OA No.542/2017 witness as decoy passenger is also not made clear and the authority to make the said change is not indicated anywhere in the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The other objection that the said P.W.6 and P.W.7 are illiterate persons and in the light of para 307 of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual responsible and impartial witnesses be used to hear conversation was an objection which is brushed aside by the Enquiry Officer by stating that in the said paragraph of the Vigilance Manual educational qualification is not mentioned. The Inquiry Officer is deliberately ignoring the other provisions of the Vigilance Manuel where it clearly laid down that for such surprise check only Gazetted Officer should be utilized. The entire reasoning of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and has to be set aside.
3.10 It has been further submitted that in para 10 of the Inquiry Officer's report where the Inquiry Officer states that "In this case it is an admitted position that the decoy passenger and independent witness is unable to read and write. So their statement Exhibit P-10 and P-11 was recorded by one Shri Suhas Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Potdar". This one conclusion or statement made by the DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 15 OA No.542/2017 Inquiry Officer is sufficient to cancel his entire findings because the entire case in article of Charge 1 and 2 hinges on the evidence of these two witnesses i.e. P.W.6 and P.W.7. More importantly, the said Suhas Potdar, as stated earlier, was not examined as a witness in the enquiry and, therefore, it is not proved that the statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7 were recorded by the said Suhas Potdar. In fact P.W.1 S.K. Bajpayee, Chief Vigilance Inspector has stated in his examination-in-chief that Exhibit 10 and 11 are recorded by him and nowhere does the said witness say that the said statements are as narrated by P.W.6 and P.W.7.
3.11 It has been submitted that P.W.6 and P.W.7 did not in their entire evidence anywhere say that they have narrated their statement to Suhas Potdar. It is clear that the entire reasoning of the Inquiry Officer is perverse and not sustainable in law. Thereafter, he gave his reply dated 12.06.2015 to the Inquiry Officer's report wherein the Applicant had in detail pointed out the defects and deficiencies in the evidence brought on record and also with a request to Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso hold the Applicant not guilty of the charges.
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 16 OA No.542/2017 3.12 Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 28.07.2015 imposing the major penalty on the Applicant of reduction of 3 stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of 4 years with postponement of future increments. In the said speaking order annexed to the penalty order, the Disciplinary Authority has in effect in the second last paragraph of the said order clearly recorded in respect of Article of Charge No.1 that with that the contradictory statements the prosecution witnesses do not conclusively point an accusing finger on the charge sheeted employee i.e. the Applicant herein. Therefore, in effect the Disciplinary Authority has held that Article of Charge No.1 not proved. The reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority shows that Article of Charge No.1 has to be held to be not proved by the Disciplinary Authority. This is also supported by the reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority in para 4 of the speaking order where he has recorded that the action of the Applicant clearly indicates that the Applicant had no intention of overcharging. It is also further recorded that the Applicant has also categorically Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso denied the charge of overcharging the independent DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 17 OA No.542/2017 witness in his statement recorded on the date of the said check. Even in respect of Article of Charge No.2 regarding Rs.45/- found excess in railway cash the Disciplinary Authority is not recording any conclusive finding that the Applicant is guilty of any particular misconduct, but is merely stating that Rs.45/- was found excess. There is no statement or finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority that he is accepting the report, findings and conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it is surprising that in the face of the reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority there was no basis to impose the harsh penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
3.13 It has been further submitted that he was entitled to file an Appeal against the said order of penalty imposed under order dated 28.07.2015, for which 45 days limitation is prescribed as per rule from the date of receipt of the order of penalty. Further, there is a provision for condonation of delay available to the Appellate Authority to condone the delay, if any, in filing of the Appeal for justifiable reasons to be recorded.Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 18 OA No.542/2017 3.14 However, before the Applicant could file the said Appeal with delay condonation application, the Revising Authority being the Respondent No.3 suo moto issued a show cause notice to the Applicant on the footing that the time limit for filing the Appeal having expired, he is issuing the show cause notice under Rule 25 (1)(v) of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 for enhancement of the punishment imposed from reduction of 3 stages for 4 years to reduction of 3 stages for a period of 7 years.
The great hurry on the part of the Revising Authority to issue a suo moto show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment merely on the ground of expiry of the period of Appeal clearly shows that there is an internal pressure specially from the Vigilance Branch which has compelled the Respondent No.3 Revising Authority to act in this fashion. It is clearly an action which is neither bonafide nor in accordance with law or Rules and by issuing the show cause notice the right of the Applicant to file his statutory Appeal has been denied to him. The powers of Revision suo moto can be exercised upto 6 months from the date of passing Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso of the order by the Disciplinary Authority. If no DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 19 OA No.542/2017 Appeal is filed, the Revising Authority had time upto the end of January, 2016 to pass orders for suo moto Revision, if so required in the matter but the present action to exercise the powers suo moto Revision within 3 months of passing of the penalty order by the Disciplinary Authority is an action which is clearly done under pressure, not with independent application of mind and the same vitiates the said action. 3.15 It has been submitted that the Revising Authority is merely stating that the Enquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Revising Authority is mentioning about malafide intention on the part of the Applicant and no reasons, basis, justification or documents are enclosed with the said show cause notice to justify the action of suo moto Revision. 3.16 In response to the suo moto action for enhancement of punishment, the applicant filed his reply dated 3.11.2015 to the Respondent No.3 pointing out that there is no evidence on record to prove the charges or for enhancement of punishment. The Respondent No.3-Revising Authority thereafter proceeded to pass the order dated 09.11.2015 within 7 Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso days of the Applicant giving his reply and the DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 20 OA No.542/2017 enhancement was confirmed by the said order. In the speaking order no reasons are given by the Revisionary Authority why the punishment should be revised. The suo moto revision is basically seeking to disagree with the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed by the said authority, but in the entire speaking order enclosed by the Respondent No.3 no reasons are given to disagree with the conclusions recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant filed an Appeal to the Respondent No.4, Chief Commercial Manager (PS) dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure A-
18). In the said Appeal against the enhanced punishment the Applicant pointed out the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority regarding the charges and also pointed out the harsh punishment imposed on the Applicant and requested for lenient view to be taken in the matter.
3.17 It has been submitted that that the said Appeal, the Respondent No.4, Chief Commercial Manager (PS) proceeded to pass order dated 01.07.2016 and rejected the said Appeal and confirmed the enhanced punishment without applying his mind and passed the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso said order under pressure of the Vigilance and the DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 21 OA No.542/2017 reasoning given would clearly indicate that there is no basis for rejecting the said Appeal. None of the points raised by the Applicant are considered in the said order rejecting the Appeal against the enhanced punishment.
4. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA.
4.1 It has been submitted that during the vigilance check some irregularities were found in the working of the applicant. Therefore, a major penalty charge sheet (SF-5) dated 21.07.2014 was issued to the applicant for overcharging the independent witness by Rs.20/- and found in the possession of excess cash of Rs.45/- in his Railway cash. After denial of charge by the applicant, departmental enquiry was conducted as per procedure prescribed under the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by following principle of natural justice. During the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. Copy of the Inquiry report was sent to the applicant on 21.05.2015 with the instructions to submit his representation against the Inquiry Officer's report. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Accordingly, he submitted his representation dated DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 22 OA No.542/2017 12.06.2015. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. DEM (Cog) held the applicant guilty of charges and imposed the penalty of "Reduction by 3 stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of four years with postponement of future increment' vide order dated 28.07.2015.
4.2 It has been submitted that the applicant did not submit any appeal against the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority within the prescribed period of 45 days. Thus, he has accepted the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, as the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was not commensurate with the misconduct committed by the applicant, the Revising Authority decided to conduct suo-moto revision. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 14.10.2015 for enhancement of penalty was issued to the applicant. The applicant submitted his representation dated 03.11.2015 against the show cause notice. The Revising Authority -OSD(S) CSTM, after considering the explanation submitted by the applicant and evidence available on record, imposed the penalty of "Reduction by 3 stages in the same time scale of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso pay for a period of seven years with postponement of DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 23 OA No.542/2017 future increment" vide order dated 09.11.2015. Thereafter, the applicant submitted appeal dated 08.01.2016 to CCM(PS) CSTM under Rule 18(iii) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 against the penalty dated 09.11.2015 imposed by the Revising Authority.
The same came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.07.2016. The applicant is challenging the orders of Disciplinary Authority dated 28.07.2015, the Revising Authority dated 09.11.2015 and order of Appellate Authority dated 01.07.2016. It has been submitted that these orders are just, proper and passed in accordance with the law and require no interference.
4.3 It has been submitted that the applicant did not file any appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority which indicates that he accepted his guilt and punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
4.4 It has been submitted that there is gross delay on the part of the applicant in approaching this Tribunal. The applicant filed the present OA on 28.07.2017 challenging the appellate order dated Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso 13.07.2016 and, therefore, the present OA suffers on DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 24 OA No.542/2017 the ground of delay and latches. It has been submitted that a Group 'B' Officer, who was posted as 'Assistant Inquiry Officer' having expertise knowledge of enquiry, was appointed as Inquiry officer. It is not mandatory to appoint Presenting Officer in every case. As per Rule, Inquiry officer is authorized to cross- examine the witnesses to find out the truth. The applicant has failed to point out that any leading question was asked by Inquiry officer. They have placed reliance upon the instructions of Railway Board's RBE No.89/01 dated 09.05.2001 which authorizes the Inquiry officer to cross-examine the witness in absence of Presenting Officer.
4.5 It has been submitted that on 05.11.2014 witnesses were examined one by one. After cross examination of one witness by the applicant and his ARE, the statement of another was recorded. The instructions issued by the Railway Board clearly provides that in absence of Presenting Officer, Inquiry Officer can examine the witnesses to find out the truth. It is the discretion of Disciplinary Authority to decide the number of witnesses and relied upon Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso documents on the basis of which charges are supposed DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 25 OA No.542/2017 to be proved. After examination of listed witnesses, the applicant was at liberty and was offered opportunities to call any person as his defence witness. Since the applicant failed to do so, he cannot be allowed now to say that some person, who were relevant, were not examined during enquiry. 4.6 It has been submitted that para 708, 709 & 710 of IRCM (Indian Railway Commercial Manual) does not authorize any employee to overcharge decoy passenger and to say that he is ready to remit the excess amount, if trapped by vigilance department. Admittedly, overcharging the decoy passenger cannot be treated as bonafide mistake and are not covered by the provisions of IRCM. It has been submitted that copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was supplied to the applicant. The Inquiry Officer's report is as per the evidence on record and supported by reasoned and findings on the basis of evidence available on record.
4.7 It has been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of "Reduction by three stages lower in the same time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with postponement of future increment" vide Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso order dated 28.07.2015. The same was acknowledged by DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 26 OA No.542/2017 the applicant on 23.08.2015. As per the Rules, the applicant was required to submit his appeal, if any, within a period of 45 days. As the applicant did not submit his appeal within the prescribed period of 45 days, show cause notice dated 14.10.2015 for enhancement of punishment was issued by the Revising Authority. The show cause notice has been issued after 75 days from the date of receipt of the copy of penalty order by the applicant. Since the applicant did not file any appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority, which indicates that he accepted his guilt and penalty imposed. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to say now that the order of Disciplinary Authority is erroneous.
4.8 In view of the above submission, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents reiterating the submissions made in the OA.
5.1 It has been submitted that the hurry shown by the Revisional Authority to suo-moto issue notice to enhance the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Authority indicates that the said action was taken DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 27 OA No.542/2017 under pressure of the vigilance and, therefore, it is not an action taken Bonafide and the same has prevented the applicant from exercising his statutory right of appeal. The entire action to enhance the punishment is taken under pressure and there is no independent exercise under taken by the Revision Authority. The rejection of the appeal against the enhanced punishment is also not proper since there is no exercise of the power of appeal by the said authority and appeal has not been considered in a proper manner and the same has been improperly rejected.
5.2 It has been submitted that the Assistant Inquiry Officer who was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry against the applicant is from the vigilance Branch of the Railway. Moreover, out of 7 witnesses, four were from the vigilance branch, one witness was Chief Booking Supervisor and remaining two witnesses were the decoy passenger and independent witness respectively.
5.3 It has been submitted that the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer has to be explained since in the absence of the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Officer will operate as Prosecutor and the judge in DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 28 OA No.542/2017 the same enquiry, which is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that Inquiry Officer is entitled to cross-examine the witness only after the Presenting Officer has concluded his examination. But in the present case, the Inquiry Officer has acted in dual capacity which is not permissible in law. 5.4 It has been submitted that the respondents have proceeded on the footing that the applicant has over charged the decoy passenger whereas there is no such charge levelled against the applicant in the charge sheet. In fact the decoy passenger was given proper change and, therefore, there is no allegation in that behalf. In the charge sheet, the independent witness, who was only to witness the transaction of the decoy passenger, was himself made to purchase a ticket after the decoy check failed, which is not permissible. Further there are no witness to the said transaction by the independent witness who did not even count the amount returned and which amount were immediately seized by the vigilance. Further, the statement of the decoy passenger and independent witness was recorded by RPF constables who were Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso dictated by the Vigilance.
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 29 OA No.542/2017
6. The respondents have not filed any sur-
rejoinder.
7. During the arguments, learned counsel for both the sides have argued their case on the basis of pleadings filed on record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Ramamurthy submitted that the applicant has throughout maintained that he did not overcharge any excess amount. He submitted that the applicant in his mandatory examination and general examination by the Inquiry Officer on 27.03.2015, in answer to question No.1 himself has stated that the independent witness has nowhere admitted that CE has overcharged to the independent witness and as regarding Rs.45/- found excess in his Railway cash, it is because of heavy rush resulted in to dealing mistake and excess shortage can happen in normal course of working and for the same provision is also made in IRCM Para 708, 709 and 710 and he has remitted the excess amount in sundry account. Thus, the applicant has admitted the mistake which was Bonafide. He submitted the prosecution witness-4 Shri S.B. Gupta, CVI (T) CSTM has stated that Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso during the decoy check Shri Anuj B. Pathak overcharged DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 30 OA No.542/2017 the independent witness by Rs.20/- and Rs.45/- was found excess in his Railway cash. He has not overcharged the decoy passenger. He has further stated that there was no specific complaint against the charged officer but there was source information. But the said statement has been ignored by the Inquiry Officer. He has further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has acted as Prosecutor/Judge in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.07.2015 had given 45 days time for filing the appeal. However, the show cause notice for enhancing the penalty was issued by the Revising Authority on 14.10.2015 and order was passed on 09.11.2015 which show that the applicant was not given sufficient time to file the appeal and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the OA to be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Khosla, on the other hand, vehemently argued on the basis of pleadings that impugned orders were fully justified and were passed in accordance with the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Railway Rules. He submitted that the Tribunal cannot DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 31 OA No.542/2017 reappreciate the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. He submitted the standard of proof in the departmental proceedings are based on the preponderance of probabilities and technical rules of evidence are not applicable in the departmental proceedings. He submitted that when the applicant has admitted that excess cash of Rs.45/- was found in his Railway cash tried to justify it by taking the plea of heavy rush and deposited the same in the sundry account proves his guilt. He further submitted that the fact that the applicant has not filed any appeal against the Disciplinary Authority's order imposing penalty even after time of 45 days expired shows that he has accepted his guilt and did not challenge the Disciplinary Authority's order. It is only after the Revising Authority having found that penalty imposed by the DA was not commensurate to the misconduct and punishment having been increased for the reduction by three stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of 4 years to 7 years that the applicant has filed appeal against the Revising Authority's order. Thus, it shows that there was evidence against the applicant. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Once it is proved that there is some evidence, the DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 32 OA No.542/2017 Tribunal cannot go into examining whether there was sufficient evidence or not?. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the application.
9.1 He has placed reliance on the following judgements:
(i) State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S. Subramaniam, 1996 (7) SCC 509 dated 24.01.1996
(ii) Narayan Pandit Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, Government of India, New Delhi and Others, 2014 SCC Online Jhar 1863
10. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and perused the pleadings and documents filed on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration.
11. It is the case of the applicant that the allegation that he has overcharged Rs.20/- from the decoy passenger is not correct and that excess amount of Rs.45/- found from him in the Railway cash was due to heavy rush of the passengers and after it was found that he was in possession of excess cash of Rs.45/-, he deposited the same in the Government account. It is the contention of the applicant that the proceedings were based on the vigilance check, that the Presenting Officer was not appointed, therefore, the Inquiry Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson Officer acted as Presenting Officer as well as Inquiry 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 33 OA No.542/2017 Officer. It has been further submitted that he did not file any appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority as he was contacting the Advocate and that the Revisionary Authority has issued suo moto notice for the enhancement of the penalty and Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the Revisionary Authority in which he enhanced the penalty of 'Reduction by three stages in the same time scale of pay from a period of four years to the period of 7 years with postponement of future increment'. Therefore, the impugned orders are not in accordance with law.
12. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents that this Tribunal cannot go into reappreciating the evidence which has been properly appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority, Revisionary Authority and the Appellate Authority. It has been further submitted that is not mandatory to appoint the Presenting Officer in each and every case as it is the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to appoint the Presenting Officer or leave it to the Inquiry Officer. It has been further submitted that once the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso applicant has accepted his guilt that excess amount of DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 34 OA No.542/2017 Rs.45/- was found in his Railway cash and after it was found by the vigilance team, he deposited the same in the Government account, therefore, he cannot take the plea that the excess cash was because of the heavy rush of the passenger. It has further argued that the applicant has accepted the penalty of 'Reduction by three stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of four years with postponement of future increment' as he did not file any appeal against the penalty order even after the expiry of 45 days. The Revisionary Authority after being satisfied that penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of the charge levelled, he issued notice for enhancement after 75 days of the passing of the penalty order and after considering the reply of the applicant enhanced to 7 years which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The applicant, having initially accepted the penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority by not filing the appeal, cannot be allowed to challenge the same before the Tribunal.
13. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S. Subramaniam (supra), 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 35 OA No.542/2017 in para 5, has held as under:
"5. ...... It is settled law that the Tribunal has only power of judicial review of the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to service conditions of employees. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence have no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or Tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and would (sic) come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. This is the consistent view of this Court vide B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, JT (1995) 8 SC 65, State of T.N. v. T.N. Venugopalan, (1994) 28 ATC 294, Union of India v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 27 ATC 200, Govt. of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 29 ATC 89 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (supra)(SCC at PP.759-60).
In view of the settled legal position, the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in appreciation of the evidence and in coming to its own conclusion that the charge had not been proved. Thus, we hold that the view of the Tribunal is ex facie illegal. The order is accordingly set aside. OA/TP/WP stands dismissed."
14. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Narayan Pandit Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, Government of India, New Delhi and Others (supra), in paras 13 and 14 of the order has held as under:
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 36 OA No.542/2017 "13. Standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is on the basis of preponderance of probability and not on the principles of proof beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of criminal prospection. When the entire material adduced during the inquiry proceeding has consistently established the guilt of the petitioner, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities the findings recorded in the inquiry cannot be said to be perverse in such circumstances. We have also examined the contention of the petitioner so far as discrepancy in the statement of PW 6 is concerned, we are not satisfied that the said discrepancy is sufficient to discredit the entire materials adduced during the inquiry to arrive at a findings of guilt on such a serious charge against the petitioner. If the charges have been proved, the punishment of reduction to the initial stage of pay in the present time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect cannot be said to be disproportionate to the established misconduct.
14. Having held as above, we are of the view that the preposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 relied upon by the petitioner does not come to his aid in the present case. We are satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity which deserves interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
15. From the records, it is clear that after issuance of charge sheet dated 21.07.2014, reply was submitted by the applicant on 27.08.2014, the applicant participated in the departmental proceedings, statements were recorded. Thereafter, the copy of Inquiry report was supplied to the applicant to which the applicant has submitted reply on 12.06.2015 and thereafter, punishment order dated 28.07.2015 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority which according to the applicant was served on him on 23.08.2015 and Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 37 OA No.542/2017 from the said date, the applicant had an opportunity to file statutory appeal within a period of 45 days. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the applicant. Although, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that in view of proviso to Rule 20 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1968, he had an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay. However, in hot haste manner, a show cause notice dated 09.11.2015 was issued by the Revisionary Authority in exercise of suo moto powers and, therefore, the applicant was prevented from filing the statutory appeal.
16. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is true that proviso to Rule 20 of the Rules, 1968 permits the delinquent employee to file the statutory appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation seeking condonation of delay. However, in given facts and circumstances of the case, it is the discretion of the Appellate Authority to condone the delay or not?
Therefore, the said power is a discretionary power vested in the Appellate Authority. Further, looking to Rule 25(5) of the Rules which provides that no action Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso under said rule shall be initiated by the Revisionary DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 38 OA No.542/2017 Authority after more than 6 months from the date of the order to be revised in cases where it is proposed to impose or enhance a penalty or modify the order to the detriment of the Railway Servant. Meaning thereby, for the Revisionary Authority also the period of limitation of 6 months is prescribed to exercise suo moto powers. Further, sub Rule 2 of Rule 25 provides that no proceeding for revision shall be commenced until after (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal. In the present case, admittedly, the period of filing an appeal was expired prior to issuance of show cause notice dated 09.11.2015. Thus, taking into the aforesaid statutory provisions, once the applicant has not preferred any appeal against the punishment order, under these circumstances, if the Revisionary Authority was of the opinion that punishment was required to be enhanced then excise of suo moto powers through show cause notice dated 09.11.2015 cannot be said to contrary to the Rules.
Further, the applicant has submitted reply to the said show cause notice and thereafter when the punishment was enhanced, the said order was challenged before the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Appellate Authority. Therefore, there is no procedural DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 39 OA No.542/2017 lapse on the part of the authorities which can be judicial reviewed by this Tribunal. Further, when the original punishment order was not challenged by the applicant by way of appeal, although it is challenged in the present OA but if this Tribunal considers and interferes with the original punishment order then it would be acting like as a Appellate Authority which is not permissible under the law.
17. Thus, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for interference in this Original Application and the same is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A)
ma.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
Milan Jackson 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f 1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8ba bf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.09 17:25:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0