Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Rajesh Pardeshi vs M/O Railways on 4 October, 2018
1 OA No.201/212/2015
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING:INDORE
Original Application No.201/212/2015
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 04th day of October, 2018
HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN TANDON, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Rajesh Pardeshi S/o Shri Jaisingh Pardeshi
Aged 45 years, Occupation Service,
Head Booking Clerk, Western Rly. Mhow
R/o-6 Teachers Colony, Mhow 453441
Tehsil Mhow District Indore (MP) -Applicant
(By Advocate -Shri C.B. Patne)
Versus
1. The Union of India, Through Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
2. The General Manager, Western Railway
Churchgate, Mumbai 400032
3. The Divisional Railway Manager
Western Railway, Ratlam, District Ratlam (M.P.) 457001
4. The Station Manager, Western Railway Mhow
Tehsil Mhow District Indore (MP) 453441
5. Shri Naresh Narvale Retired Station Manager
(Railway Station, Omkareshwar Road)
R/o Near Bhawani Mata Mandir Behind
Dada Dhuniewale Ashram
Khandwa 45001 (MP)
6. Shri Shrikrishan Sandal
Retired Head Booking Clerk
R/o Chandan Marg, New Agrawal Stores Street
Mhow 453441, Tehsil Mhow
District Indore (M.P.) - Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Surendra Gupta for
respondents Nos.1 to 4)
(Date of reserving the order:09.08.2018)
Page 1 of 12
2 OA No.201/212/2015
ORDER
By Navin Tandon, AM:-
The applicant is aggrieved by the fact that Rs.4,17,562/- has been recovered from him in an arbitrary fashion without holding any full fledged inquiry. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as Head Booking Clerk with the respondent-department and he has made following submissions:-
2.1 The applicant was transferred to Omkareshwar Road Station from Mhow and Shri Shrikrishan Sandal (respondent No.6) was transferred to Mhow Railway Station from Omkareshwar Road vide orders on 08.05.2012 (Annexure A-1). 2.2 The applicant expressed his inability to go to Omkareshwar Road as per his letter dated 15.05.2012 (Annexure A-2) submitted to Respondent No.3 stating therein that working style of respondent No.6 is suspicious and he was earlier suspended. The admitted debits against him are about Rs.3 lakhs and there are deficiencies in U.T.S. tickets as well as obsolete tickets. 2.3 However, the applicant joined at Omkareshwar and the charge was handed over/taken over by respondent No.6 and applicant on 14.07.2012 (Annexure A-3).
Page 2 of 12 3 OA No.201/212/2015 2.4 Subsequently, a report was prepared by Station Manager, Omkareshwar Road and Commercial Inspector, Mhow on 5/6.05.2014 (Annexure A-7), wherein it has been mentioned that while card tickets were being destroyed on 17.10.2013, Senior TIA/MHW had raised a debit of Rs.12,52,860/- for which the applicant and respondent No.5 and 6 were found responsible. 2.5 The applicant thereafter submitted his representation dated 12.06.2014 (Annexure A-9) to respondent. The Station Manager, Omkareshwar Road, Commercial Inspector, Mhow and Senior TIA/Mhow submitted their report vide letter dated 20.07.2014 (Annexure A-10) wherein they have clearly admitted in Para 2, 3 and 6 that the applicant was not given physical possession of the obsolete tickets by respondents Nos.5 & 6 while handing over the charge.
2.6 Thereafter, respondent-department issued a notice to applicant on 07.08.2014 (Annexure A-11) calling upon him to settle the matter of deficient tickets within 7 days. The applicant submitted his explanation to respondent vide his letter dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure A-12).
2.7 The respondents thereafter imposed recovery of a sum of Rs.4,17,562/- on the applicant to be recovered in 42 installments of Page 3 of 12 4 OA No.201/212/2015 Rs.9,942/- per month from his salary vide recovery note annexed at Annexure A-13.
2.8 The applicant again submitted his representation dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure A-14) to respondent for stopping the said recovery but the same did not bear any result. 2.9 Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing an Original Application No.201/708/2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2014 with a direction to the respondents to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after considering the representation of the applicant in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the applicant requests, he may be given the opportunity of personal hearing also before passing the order.
2.10 In compliance of the said order dated 09.12.2014 ibid, the respondent-department passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure A-18) wherein the respondent-department maintained the earlier order of recovery of a sum of Rs.4,17,562/-
from the applicant.
3. The applicant in this Original Application has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8. Relief Sought:- This Hon. Tribunal may graciously be pleased:-Page 4 of 12
5 OA No.201/212/2015
8.1. To call for the relevant record of the case from the respondent;
8.2 To quash the impugned recovery order Annexure A/13 issued by Res. No.3 in Sept. 2014 as also the impugned recovery notice Annexure A/11 dated 7-8-2014 and the impugned rejection order dated 28.1.2015 Annexure P/18 issued by Res. No.3 8.3 To restrain the respondents No.1 to 4 from making any recovery from the applicant in pursuance of the impugned recovery order;
8.4 To allow this application with costs; and 8.5 To pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate to grant relief to the applicant."
4. The official respondents have submitted the following in their reply:
4.1 Traffic debit shortage was found in obsolete Card Tickets at Omkareshwar Road Station for the period when he was working on the post of Head Booking Clerk at that Station.
4.2 Prior to fixing responsibility, an enquiry was conducted in May 2014 (Annexure A/7) and three employees, namely applicant and respondent Nos.5 and 6 were found equally responsible for the shortage of obsolete Card Tickets valued at Rs.1252685/-. The Competent Authority decided to recover the same amount from the three employees equally.Page 5 of 12
6 OA No.201/212/2015 4.3 The applicant was overall in charge of Omkareshwar Road Station at the relevant time and he took charge. Card Tickets and money value stocks were handed over to him while taking charge, so he cannot transfer his responsibility for shortage of tickets.
4.4 Since, the applicant and respondent No.5 submitted their representation on 12.06.2014 (Annexure A-9) and 05.06.2014 (Annexure R/2) respectively, the comments were again sought from Station Manager/Omkareshwar Road, Commercial Inspector /Mhow and Sr. TIA/ Mhow who sent their remarks on 20.07.2014 (Annexure A/10). 4.5 Again, a joint enquiry by Assistant Commercial Manager (Coaching) Ratlam, Area Rail Officer/Ratlam and Senior Traffic Inspector of Accounts/Ratlam was conducted, the report of which was submitted on 19.11.2014 (Annexure R/1), which also held all the three employees equally responsible.
4.6 The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the said O.A.
5. The applicant and official respondents have filed rejoinder, reply to rejoinder, additional rejoinder and reply to additional rejoinder.
Page 6 of 12 7 OA No.201/212/2015
5.1 The applicant has referred to Manual of Station Account and Coaching Tariff (Annexure A/8) to say that the responsibility of obsolete tickets is only with respondent No.5, 6 and senior functionaries under respondent No.3, who did not perform their duties of inspection.
5.2 Applicant has also relied upon Railway's communication (Annexure A/19) wherein it has been directed that Printed Card Tickets (PCTs) may be done away with where UTS with thin clients have been commissioned. The existing stock of PCT's should be destroyed after three months from the date of commissioning of UTS with thin clients after ensuring certain conditions. Since UTS was commissioned at Omkareshwar Road Station in October 2010 and the applicant had joined there at 25.05.2012, he was not responsible for obsolete PCTs, and only earlier staffs are responsible.
5.3 The respondents have submitted that the entire Ratlam Division was working towards meeting the tough target of commissioning UTS at 100 stations. The same manpower was to be used for destruction of obsolete PCTs.
5.4 Also since, no PCTs were sold after commissioning of UTS, no loss to Railways has happened. Hence, the applicant claims that no responsibility can be fixed on him.
Page 7 of 12 8 OA No.201/212/2015
6. Respondent No.6 has filed his reply, who has prayed for dismissal of the O.A. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.6.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and official respondents and perused the pleadings on the file.
8. The case of the applicant is that:
8.1 He was not handed over the charge of obsolete PCTs. 8.2 Proper enquiry has not been done.
8.3 The main responsibility lies with the earlier staff and the superior officials for not destroying/proper accountal of obsolete PCTs.
9. While the applicant is said to have joined Omkareshwar Road Station on 25.05.2012, the handing over/taking over of money value stocks was concluded on 14.07.2012 (Annexure A/3).
The following lines were written by the respondent No.6 in Para 12 which reads as under:-
"12. Absolute Tkt 24 5-5 Administration SS "
The applicant also mentioned:
" ".
10. The applicant is repeatedly mentioning the fact that he was not handed over the charge of obsolete PCTs. Therefore, he can not Page 8 of 12 9 OA No.201/212/2015 be held responsible for the shortage. Since his predecessor (Respondent No.6) has stated that he will be responsible for the shortage, if any, the applicant has no responsibility.
11. The respondents have submitted that the extracts of relevant Railway manuals filed by applicant himself as Annexure A/8 indicates the responsibility of the applicant. Para 217 reads as under:-
"217. Responsibility for the custody and cleanliness of tickets.
At stations where there are no Head Booking Clerks, Station Masters will be held personally responsible for the safe custody, cleanliness and correct accountal of tickets of all descriptions supplied, and it will be their duty, on taking charge of a station, to satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the stocks on hand. When there is a change of Station Masters, either permanent or temporary (except at stations where there is a responsible booking clerk), a statement of all tickets on hand, giving details of station, class, commencing number, closing number, and the number of tickets on hand should be drawn up in duplicate, checked with the ticket stock book and signed by both the relieved and relieving Station Masters. One copy of the statement should be forwarded to the Divisional Superintendent and the other filed at the station.
At all other stations, the Head Booking Clerk is responsible and when a change of Head Booking Clerk takes place, either permanent or temporary, a statement of the tickets on hand should be prepared and dealt with as above.
........."
11.1 Since the applicant was Head Booking at Omkareshwar Road Station, it was his responsibility to maintain the custody of tickets.
11.2 Extracts from Para 230 are as under:-
Page 9 of 1210 OA No.201/212/2015
"230. Custody and cleanliness of tickets:-
(a).........
(b) All card and paper tickets not in use must be under lock and key in the ticket stock almirah or drawer. The key of the almirah or drawer containing the stock of tickets must be kept in the custody of the Station Master, or at stations where the Station Master is not directly responsible for tickets, in the custody of the Booking Clerk responsible."
12. The learned counsel for the applicant brought our attention to provisions in para 234 that:-
"234. Check of tickets in stock and in tubes.- Station Masters must check and examine tickets in the tubes of as many stations as possible everyday and record the result in the daily trains cash-cum-summary book showing particulars of tickets checked with their commencing and closing numbers. This check should be so exercised that all the series in the tube come under the purview of check at least once a month. Station Masters should also test check the tickets in stock during the course of their inspections. Similar checks of tickets in tubes and in stock will be conducted by the Traffic/Commercial Inspectors at the time of their visits to stations, and the result of such checks recorded in the station inspection book."
12.1 Learned counsel for respondents submitted that during the period under consideration, the PCTs were not sold and only computer tickets were being sold. Hence, the question of inspection of tickets in tubes did not arise.
13. The applicant in para 7 of his rejoinder to reply to respondent No.6 has stated that in case of shortage of tickets, the procedure listed in Para 229 of Commercial Manual has not been followed, viz. lodging of FIR etc. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that provision of Para 229 are for fresh supply, and not for tickets already available in stocks. Page 10 of 12 11 OA No.201/212/2015
14. The procedures of handing over/taking over in any public office are clearly laid out. The stock holder of all the stocks is the present incumbent of the post. In fact, after handing over the charge, the predecessor becomes an outsider and cannot enter the premises just because he was earlier posted at that place. If at all there were some shortages found at the time of handing over/taking over, the same should have been jointly recorded.
15. The Official respondents have brought out that since the applicant was aware of the working of Respondent No.6, he should have been more vigilant while taking over the charge. Further, the applicant may not have counted the tickets but it is sure that he received the tickets.
16. We find that no joint recording of shortages was done in the present case. The enquiry reports also mention that enough time was granted for handing over/taking over and therefore, paucity of time is not a valid reason for not counting the obsolete tickets.
17. From the foregoing, we are of the view that obsolete tickets were in the charge of the applicant and he cannot pass off the responsibility to his predecessors and/or superiors. If at all the tickets were not counted at the time of handing over/taking over, he should have done so at the earliest and highlighted the shortages, if any. Alternatively, he should have involved his superiors in getting Page 11 of 12 12 OA No.201/212/2015 the tickets counted. But, the applicant was under the false impression that giving the remarks "obsolete tickets not counted"
will save him from the responsibility of shortages of tickets under his charge.
18. Destruction of old money value stocks has to be done as per established procedures. Just because the administration gave the permission to destroy PCTs after 3 months of commissioning of UTS does not mean the same are to thrown away. As a stock holder, it was the duty of the applicant also to ensure that the same are destroyed as per procedure.
19. It is, therefore, clearly established that the primary responsibility of keeping proper accountal of the money value stock under him was of the applicant.
20. We are also satisfied that proper enquiry was carried out at two levels before the recovery was initiated. The respondents in the order dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure A/18) have also stated this fact.
21. From the above, we are of the view that there is no merit in the application.
22. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(Ramesh Singh Thakur) (Navin Tandon)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
kc
Page 12 of 12