Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajveer Singh Aged About 54 Years Son Of ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager ... on 12 December, 2013
Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD Original Application No. 1141 of 2009 Allahabad this the, 12th day of December, 2013 Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Sr. J.M./HOD Honble Ms. B. Bhamathi, Member (A) Rajveer Singh aged about 54 years Son of Shri Kharakh Singh Resident of House No. 5.C. Moti Nagar, Balaji Puram, Mathura, District Mathura. Applicant By Advocate: Sri Vinod Kumar Versus 1. Union of India through General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. General Manager (Operating), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 3. General Manager (Vigilance), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur. 4. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, Bareilly. 5. Divisional Operating Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, District - Bareilly. 6. Shri Mahaveer Singh, Chief Traffic Inspector, North Eastern Railway, Mathura Cantt., District Mathura. Respondents By Advocate: Sri P.N. Rai Reserved on 19.11.2013 O R D E R
By Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Sr. J.M./HOD This O.A. has been filed for the following relief(s): -
(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the impugned Disciplinary Order dated 13.11.2006 and the Revising Order 19.06.2008.
(ii) To issue an order or direction in suitable nature commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary for the period in which the applicant was placed under suspension as also the period in which the order of the Appellate Authority (Set-aside by Revising Authority) remained under operating and also re-fix his seniority ignoring the punishment orders and pay him all consequential benefits arising out of quashing of the punishment order.
(iii) To pass such other order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award the cost of the Application to the Applicant.
2. The brief facts of the O.A. are as follows: -
The applicant was selected by the then Railway Service Commission (now Railway Recruitment Board), Allahabad for the post of Assistant Station Master in the year 1982. Initially he was posted as Assistant Station Master in Delhi Division, Northern Railway but subsequently transferred to Izzat Nagar Division of North Eastern Railway on the basis of mutual transfer and in the year 1990 he was posted at Marhara station in the same division. He was being harassed in different ways by one Shri Mahaveer Singh-respondent No. 6 who was Chief Traffic Inspector at Mathura Cantt. Ultimately, applicant moved a complaint against respondent No. 6 before the Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly on 17.11.2003. However, no action was taken on that complaint. After this complaint, respondent No. 6 managed a vigilance raid at Marhara station on 28.04.2004 at the time of applicants duty in the shift of 06.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. In pursuance of vigilance check, applicant was placed under suspension on 21.05.2004 and remained suspended till 23.08.2004. He was again allowed to join duty at Marhara station itself and remained there till March, 2006. As a result of aforesaid vigilance raid, ultimately applicant was served upon the major penalty memorandum dated 08.10.2004 in which charge levelled against the applicant was that he has collected Rupee 1/- extra on each ticket for Second Class Mail Express train from Marhara to Gonda as he has taken `600/- instead of `595/- which was the actual fare for five tickets. In the departmental inquiry, vigilance authority appointed one Mohd. Mushtaq Ali as an Inquiry Officer who submitted inquiry report exonerating the applicant from the charges levelled against him. The inquiry report along with a disagreement note was served upon the applicant by the Divisional Operating Manager, Izzat Nagar on 29.08.2006. The applicant filed his Reply dated 09.09.2006 raising objection that due to high handedness of vigilance team he is being penalized. But, his objection was not accepted by the department and the Disciplinary Authority finally passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2006. Subsequently, applicant met with an accident on 24.11.2006 and lost his left leg below knee.
3. A show cause notice was issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Izzat Nagar (Reviewing Authority) on 08.03.2007 proposing enhancement of punishment from reduction of rank to compulsory retirement. The applicant filed an O.A. No. 381 of 2007 before this Tribunal challenging the aforesaid show cause notice. The Tribunal decided the aforesaid O.A. allowing the applicant to prefer an Appeal before the Appellate Authority with further direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the same within a period of three months. Accordingly, applicant preferred the appeal before the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar who without applying his mind passed the appellate order on 22.02.2008 enhancing the punishment to the extent of compulsory retirement of the applicant.
4. The applicant filed a Revision Petition before the General Manager (Operating), N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur challenging both the Orders praying for complete exoneration from all the charges levelled against him. The Revision Petition of the applicant was decided on 19.06.2008 and the punishment of compulsory retirement was set aside and the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority regarding reversion of the applicant from the pay scale of `5000-8000/- (5th Pay Commission) to `4500-7000/- for one year with temporary effect with the observation that the applicant will have no loss of seniority.
5. Thereafter, applicant was posted as Head Clerk in Engineering Department in the D.R.M. Office, Izzat Nagar as the applicant has been medically decategorized due to his accident. The order of Revising Authority has not been completely implemented so far as the applicant has not been paid the arrears for the period in which the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the Appellate Authority, was enforced and the applicant was out of job. He has also not been given the proper seniority. Hence, this O.A. was filed mainly on the grounds that the applicant has been harassed on the insistence of respondent No. 6 and false vigilance raid was organized in which he was charged. Further action against the applicant has been taken on the instance of vigilance team. The order of punishment passed by the Revising Authority is not a speaking and reasoned order.
6. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have filed Counter Reply stating therein that the vigilance team made a decoy test check on 28.04.2004 at Marhara railway station in which applicant was found guilty of taking excess fare eg. he charged `600/- for five tickets (from Marhara to Gonda Junction Second Class/Express) at the rate of `120/- per ticket in place of `595/- at the rate of `119/-. He on being found guilty, after inquiry, was given punishment of placing him at the lower scale e.g. from `5000-8000/- to `4500-7000/- for a period of one year. This order was passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority on 13.11.2006. In the appeal preferred by the applicant against the aforesaid order, the A.D.R.M., Izzat Nagar enhanced the punishment after coming to conclusion that the punishment awarded to applicant was not sufficient. On revision, the Revisional Authority upheld the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority not accepting the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the applicant. It is wrong to say that the vigilance team was planned only to harass the applicant due to his enmity with respondent No. 6. The punishment was awarded to the applicant on the basis of evidence available against him regarding the vigilance decoy check. Not only this, the applicant himself has admitted the factum of vigilance decoy check and the statement of eye witnesses Chaulai Prasad and Decoy Amarjeet, and he has written in his own handwriting that the statement of witnesses is correct. Proper inquiry was done in the matter. There was no influence of the vigilance official in inquiry proceedings or in awarding of punishment to the applicant. It is also incorrect to say that the applicant was not given proper opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority before passing of final order.
7. The applicant being medically decategorized was found unfit for the post of Assistant Station Master in the pay scale of `5000-8000/- and accordingly he was absorbed in the same pay scale on the post of Head Clerk as per rules. The Revisional Authority-Chief Operating Manager also directed for adjustment of the period from 22.02.2008 to 19.06.2008 against the available LAP and in case of non-availability of LAP, same was to be treated as LWP and accordingly the aforesaid period from 22.02.2008 to 19.06.2008 was regularised. The applicant has been given the seniority as per rules and accordingly he was also given entire arrears and the allegations of applicant to the contrary are incorrect. The applicant does not deserve for any relief and the O.A. should be dismissed.
8. The applicant has filed the Rejoinder Affidavit mainly reiterating the earlier stands taken by him in the O.A.
9. Supplementary Counter Reply has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made in the Rejoinder Affidavit.
10. The applicant has placed reliance on documentary evidence also which has been filed as annexure A-1 to annexure A-14.
11. On the other hand, the respondents have placed reliance on documentary evidence which is annexure CA-1 to annexure CA-5.
12. On the request of parties counsel, they were allowed to file the Written Arguments. The respondents counsel has filed the Written Argument but no Written Argument has been filed by the applicant.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
14. The main submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been harassed and victimized on the instance of respondent No. 6 and vigilance team. It is further submitted that this victimization by the vigilance team was started after a complaint made by the applicant against respondent No. 6 to higher authorities. It has also been submitted that the respondents did not properly appreciate the evidence on record against the applicant and they have wrongly punished the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents has rebutted these submissions stating that on the complaint of the applicant against respondent No. 6, an inquiry was made into the matter and the allegations made by the applicant against respondent No. 6 were found false and baseless. This inquiry was made by one Shri R.M. Jauhari and he submitted his report on 16.06.2004. The respondents have placed reliance on annexure CA-1 on record.
15. As regards the allegations of false raid by the vigilance team, it has been submitted by the respondents counsel that on complaint against the applicant it was organized under the prescribed procedure and the applicant was found having charged Rs.1/- per ticket more than the prescribed rate of ticket. Two witnesses of fact namely Amarjeet and Chaulai Prasad were present and they have deposed against the applicant and the applicant has himself endorsed on their statement that their statement is correct. The contention of applicant that this sentence was written under pressure of the respondents cannot be accepted at this belated stage because had there been any pressure on the applicant in writing the aforesaid sentence, later on he could have reported this matter to the higher authorities. But, nothing is on record to substantiate this fact.
16. As regards the contention of applicant that the disproportionate punishment was imposed upon him, it is also not correct because a perusal of impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority shows that he has set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded by the Appellate Authority and the minimum punishment has been given to the applicant by affirming the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority for one year only and that will also not affect his seniority. Considering the charges levelled against the applicant, it cannot be said that the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is not proportionate to the charges levelled against him.
17. The main emphasis of learned counsel for the applicant during his argument was on the words Satarkata Tippadi Nimn Prakar Hai. Only on the basis of these words he has tried to submit that the vigilance team was behind the entire episode. But only these words are not sufficient to presume that the vigilance team has deliberately and falsely victimized the applicant and the respondents authority acted under pressure of vigilance team.
18. As regards relief No. 2 of the O.A., applicant has prayed for payment of arrears of salary for the period in which he was placed under suspension and also for the period in which he was out of service after passing of the order of compulsory retirement awarded by the Appellate Authority, a perusal of para-23 of the Counter Affidavit, filed by the respondents, specifically shows that the Revisional Authority i.e. Chief Operating Manager directed for adjustment of the period from 22.02.2008 to 19.06.2008 and the respondents have acted accordingly by regularizing the aforesaid period i.e. from 22.02.2008 to 05.03.2008 as 13 days LAP, from 06.03.2008 to 15.03.2008 as 11 days HLAP and from 16.03.2008 to 19.06.2008 as 96 days LWP. It is also specifically mentioned in this order that the applicant has been given seniority as per rules and he was also given the entire arrears for that period. As regards the salary for the suspension period, it is apparent from the O.A. that the applicant was placed under suspension on 21.05.2004 and remained under suspension till 23.08.2004 i.e. for about three months. There is no mention in the O.A. as to under what terms and conditions he was placed under suspension and how much subsistence allowance has been paid to him. In this regard it suffice to say that if the applicant has not been paid the legally payable allowance during the suspension period, the respondents are under an obligation to pay the same to applicant within the stipulated period.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, facts and circumstances, we conclude that the O.A. is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. O.A. is accordingly dismissed, with the observation, as already made, that the applicant will be paid legally due payment of allowance and other consequential benefits for the period in which he was placed under suspension, if not already paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. No order as to costs.
(Ms. B. Bhamathi) {Justice S.S. Tiwari}
Member-A Member-J
/M.M/
10