Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Surinder Singh Chark vs Union Of India: Through on 11 August, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.65/2012
Order Reserved on : 07.08.2015
Order Pronounced on :11.08.2015
HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (J)
Surinder Singh Chark,
S/o Late ShriKrishan Singh,
Railway Station,
AnandVihar,
Delhi. ....Applicant
(By Advocate :Shri G.D.Bhandari)
VERSUS
Union of India: Through
1. General Manager
Northern Railway
Headquarters Office
Baroda House
New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager
Northern Railway
DRM Office,
FirozpurCantt.
3. DRM, Delhi Division,
Northern Railway
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms.Bhaswati Anukampa)
ORDER
By Honble Dr.Brahm A.Agrawal, Member(J):
The applicant, a head clerk, who suffered departmental action as well as transfer, prays this Tribunal to set aside:
(i) the punishment order dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure A-1), the appellate authoritys order dated 24.12.2009 [not annexed], the revisional authoritys order dated 27.10.2011 (Annexure A-5); and
(ii) the transfer order dated 03.09.2008 (Annexure A-12) transferring the applicant from Ferozpur Division to Delhi Division.
2. The departmental action against the applicant had been initiated under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 on the following charges, as quoted in the Enquiry Report (Annexure A-15) [Charge Memo, not annexed]:
1. Shri Surinder Singh Charak HERC/JAT is found indulging in touting activities which was checked during the discreet watch he was entertaining person/ tout out of the queue. When he was checked by II/RB, 3 requisition slips for reservation and one requisition slip along with one PNR ticket No. 250-2770091 by Train No. 404A in 3AC ex JQAT to NDLS for cancellation were found lying on the counter. The person tout when called inside the Reservation Office to check, he fled away leaving these requisition forms and PNR ticket and did not turn up during the vigilance check to take the same. This shows the irregular activities of Shri Surinder Singh Charak HERC JAT with the tout. The PNR ticket No. 250-277091 was got cancelled from Counter No. 2733 and Rs. 2236/- were got deposited in government cash through MR No. 181335.
2. Shri Surinder Singh Charak HERC/JAT is found responsible for having personal relations with the touts travel agents. This is supported from the fact that during the check, the same person tout called Shri Surinder Singh Charak HERC/JAT on his mobile phone from Phone No. 09419144866 and 09419182936 for the requisition slip and PNR ticket No. 250-2770091 which were left by him on the counter of Shri Surinder Singh Charak HERC/JAT before fleeing away. This fact is also admitted by Surinder Singh Charak HERC/JAT in his statement that this person/ tout belonged to SS Travels.
3. Shri Surinder Singh Charak HERC/JAT was having Rs. 15/- excess in his private cash which cannot be without overcharging/ returning less balance to the passenger and it shows his malafide intention.
4. Shri Surinder Singh Charak HERC/JAT created heavy shortage of Rs. 2764/- against him and neither he made its payment nor made any efforts to get it cleared in case he had any objection against this heavy outstanding in books.
By the above act of omission and commission Shri Surinder Singh Charak, HERC/JAT failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Railway Servant by contravening Rule 3.1 (i), (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules 1966.
3. All the afore-quoted charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of reduction in the pay-scale by two stages for three years with cumulative effect. However, the revisional authority, while upholding the said punishment, reduced the period of three years to two years.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the rulings cited, and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
5. It is settled by a catena of judgments that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merits by re-appreciating evidence as an appellate authority; judicial review is directed against the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and court/tribunal cannot arrive at its own independent finding. Punishment also can be interfered with only if the same shocks the conscience as to its proportionality. We may in this connection refer to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner, K.V.S. Vs. J. Hussain [2013 (12) SCALE 416] and S.R. Tewari Vs. UOI [ 2013 (7) SCALE 417 ].
6. We do not find any infirmity in the process involved in the disciplinary proceedings held against the applicant or any prejudice having been caused to him during the course thereof. The Enquiry Officer concerned was not working in the Vigilance Branch and also, no request had at the relevant time been made for a change. Therefore, there appears no ground to interfere with the impugned disciplinary action, including the quantum of punishment.
7. As regards the question of transfer, the applicant relies on the Railway Boards Order dated 25.03.1967 (Annexure A-10), which, inter alia, reads as under:
. non-gazetted staff against whom a disciplinary case is pending or is about to start, should not normally be transferred from one Railway /Division to another Railway/ Division till after the finalization of the departmental or criminal proceedings, irrespective of whether the charges merit imposition of a major or a minor penalty.
8. However, the respondents place reliance on the Railway Boards later Circular dated 02.11.1998 (Annexure R-4), which reads as under:
Sub: Inter-divisional transfer of ticket checking staff and other staff in mass contact areas.
In terms of existing instructions ticket checking staff detected to be indulging in malpractices, are required to be invariably sent on inter-divisional, inter-railway transfer as a matter of policy.
2. The question of feasibility of effecting inter-divisional transfer of staff in mass contact areas including ticket checking staff, as discussed in the Conference on Malpractices and Corruption in Mass Contact Areas organized by the Ministry of Railways on 10-7-98.
3. Pursuant to the above discussion, it has been decided that while the existing policy of inter-divisional/inter-railway transfer of ticket checking staff detected to be including in malpractices shall continue, other staff in mass contact areas detected to be indulging in malpractices should also be transferred on inter-divisional basis.
9. It is submitted by the respondents in their reply that the applicant has been transferred on administrative grounds and he has also been working in Delhi Division since 18.03.2010. We do not see any infirmity in the transfer order as well.
10. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the O.A. is devoid of merits. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed. No Order as to costs.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER(A)
/rb/