Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
J V N Rajasekhar vs M/O Railways on 6 February, 2026
1
OA.No.1076/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/01076/2016
ORDER RESERVED ON 29.12.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 06.02.2026
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
J.V.N.Rajasekhar
S/o. J.Visweswaram
Aged about 58 years
Occ: Retd. Chief S & WI, CPO/O/SC
Rail Nilayam, IV Floor
South Central Railway
Secunderabad-500 071. .....Applicant
(By Advocate: Sri K.Sudhaker Reddy)
Vs.
1. The Union of India rep by
The General Manager
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, III Floor
Secunderabad - 500 071.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer/Admn
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam
IV Floor, Secunderabad - 500 071.
3. Deputy Chief Personnel Officer/HQ
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, IV Floor
Secunderabad- 500 071. ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.PC for CG)
******
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad,
S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR
HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209
APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77
68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected],
CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.1076/2016
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"To quash and set aside the impugned order Nos. SCR/P.HQ/425(a)/DAR/P9/HQRS/JVNR/65/2012 dated 09.11.2015 issued by the Third Respondent herein imposing the penalty of Compulsory retirement on the applicant and the order No.CR/P.HQ/425(a)/DAR/P9/HQRS/JVNR/65/2012 dated 27.05.2016 issued by the second Respondent herein confirming the penalty of Compulsory retirement on the applicant in Appeal by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, discriminative, violative of the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 and violative of the Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and further direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant back in service with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as per the submission of the applicant, are as follows:
i. The Applicant herein was appointed on 01.12.1982 as Junior Clerk in the office of PWI/MBNR. He had been working as Welfare Inspector Gr.I, since 2006, in the office of Sr.DPO/HYB Division, without any blemish. While working as Welfare Inspector Gr.I, the applicant was involved in a decoy check, conducted by the Vigilance Branch of the S.C.Railway, in the year 2012, and, basing on the check report, the applicant was placed under suspension, which was later revoked, and he was transferred to the CPO's Office on Inter Division Transfer.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.1076/2016 ii. He was served with a charge sheet, dt.04.10.2012, for imposition of major penalty, which contained the following articles of charge:
"Article-I That the said Sri J.V.N.Rajasekhar while working as CS&WI, Sr.DPO/O/HYB, during the year 2012 had committed serious misconduct/misbehaviour in that he demanded and collected Rs.5,000/- as bribe amount from Sri K.Sai Mohan Krishna for processing his case for appointment on compassionate grounds consequent on the demise of his father Sri K.Hari Krishna, Ex- Safaiwala/SSE/C&W/O/KCG (expired on 14.10.2009), with a malafide intention, as detailed in the statement of imputations.
Article-II That the said Sri J.V.N.Rajasekhar while working as CS&WI, Sr.DPO/O/HYB, during the years 2007 and 2009 had committed serious misconduct/misbehaviour in that he had failed to intimate to the Railway administration in regard to the transactions of purchase of two wheeler i.e., Motor Cycle of Hero Honda make on his name by cash and purchase of four wheeler i.e., Chevrolet Car, Spark L.S. make on his name by taking car loan from SBI (Car finance), St.John Road Branch, Secunderabad respectively as detailed in the statement of imputations.
Article-III That the said Sri J.V.N.Rajasekhar while working as CS&WI, Sr.DPO/O/HYB, during the years 2009 and 2010 had committed serious misconduct/misbehaviour in that he had failed to intimate to the administration in regard to the transactions of Gold loan and Personal loan availed by him from State Bank of India, St.John Road Branch, Secunderabad respectively as detailed in the statement of imputations.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.1076/2016 Article-IV That the said Sri J.V.N.Rajasekhar while working as CS&WI, Sr.DPO/O/HYB, during the year 2010 had committed serious misconduct/misbehaviour in that he had failed to intimate to the administration in regard to the transactions about crediting/receiving/accepting of huge amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on 12.08.2010 from his mother's Bank Account i.e., SBI, Nellore Town Branch/Nellore to his Bank Account i.e., SBI, St.John Road Branch, Secunderabad as detailed in the statement of imputations.
His acts were found to be in contravention of Rule 18 of the RS(Conduct) Rules, 1966, and violated Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) and Rule 26 of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Vide Annexure-III, fourteen documents were listed, and, under A-IV, eight persons were listed as witnesses to prove the charges.
iii. The Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) had come to a conclusion that the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe amount was not witnessed by any independent witness and when the said authority came to the conclusion that the other charge under Article-III is not a serious offence committed by the charged employee, in that it is only non-
intimation of transaction, he ought to have either exonerated the applicant or issued him a minor penalty. But, the D.A., for reasons best known to him, imposed the capital penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" on the applicant, which has deprived the applicant of his livelihood. The Appellate Authority (A.A.) had mechanically confirmed the penalty imposed by the D.A. through a non-speaking order.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.1076/2016
3. The grounds raised for relief, by the applicant, include the following:
i. The order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement is harsh, disproportionate, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unwarranted and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii. During the inquiry, the independent witness, PW-5, Sri Koti Venkateswara Rao, Sr.Khalasi, SMM.ELS/LGD, gave clear evidence in answer to Q.No.105 that he did not observe as to what conversation had taken place between the applicant and the decoy. Vigilance Inspectors also did not show PW-5, any complaint given by the decoy with regard to the alleged demand made by applicant. In answer to Q.No.108, PW-5 also admitted that he had signed Ex.P-6 without understanding the contents of the same.
iii. Before commencement of the regular inquiry, the applicant had sought translated copies of RUD Nos.07, 08 & 10, as those statements were in Telugu and the applicant's defence counsel was not conversant with the Telugu Language. The DA, while rejecting the applicant's request, advised him to seek the documents required during the course of the regular inquiry. The applicant had made a representation also to the IO, on 24.06.2013, in this regard. The Inquiry Officer (R-4) arbitrarily ruled that the contention of CE, that non-submission of translated version of the said RUDs amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity, cannot be accepted because the applicant is conversant with the Telugu Language and can translate the contents to his DC in the Inquiry.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.1076/2016 iv. None of the seven witnesses, examined during the inquiry proceedings, gave corroborative evidence and their individual depositions were radically different.
v. It is alleged that, under the 'GARB' of seeking clarifications, the Inquiry Officer conducted searching cross-examination of the DW-1 and tried to fill up the gap left out by the PO, by seeking clarifications on points over which the PO did not bother to cross-examine. The IO acted more as a prompter to the PO than as an unbiased and impartial Inquiry Officer.
vi. The most startling revelation made by the decoy is that all the documents, i.e., Ex.P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-8, were prepared after the check was conducted and no document was prepared earlier. The test check memo is itself a false and incorrect document and after the completion of the check, the VIs prepared the details of the G.C.Notes recovered from the applicant's possession and prepared a fictitious document incorporating the note numbers, as if they were pre-recorded. Thus, the contention of the prosecution that the pre-
recorded notes were found in applicant's possession which confirms the charges that the applicant demanded and accepted the bribe amount, becomes irrelevant and false.
vii. It is contended by the applicant that the Respondents ought to have seen that the provisions of Para 307.5 of the IRVM reads as follows:
"307.5.Proper execution of the trap is very important. The following important points should be kept in view:
(i) One or more responsible and impartial witness/witnesses must hear the conversation, which Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.1076/2016 should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification. This would squarely meet the likely defence of the accused that the money was actually received as a loan or something else.
(ii) The transaction should be within the sight and hearing of the independent witness/witnesses."
In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority had himself admitted, in the impugned order, dt.9.11.2015, that the independent witness in the case has nowhere mentioned during the inquiry that he heard the conversation which could establish that the money was passed as illegal gratification and that the said transaction was within his sight or hearing. The D.A. had himself admitted that the other proved charge, under Article-III, is not a serious offence, as it is only regarding non-intimation of a transaction.
viii. The respondents ought to have seen that the applicant had preferred appeal, dt.23.11.2015, to R-2 herein, duly bringing in all the points raised by him in his defence brief and in the representation against the Inquiry Report, but, unfortunately, the Appellate Authority, after keeping the appeal with him for over six months, mechanically, confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority through a non-speaking order, dt.27.05.2016.
ix. In terms of the Railway Board instructions, in its letter Nos.E(D&A) 70 RG 6-41, dt.20.10.71 & E(D&A) 2000 RG6-60, dt.9.5.2001, in Master Circular No.67 issued by the CPO/SCR, it is specifically mentioned that "where no Presenting Officer has been appointed, there should be no objection to the Inquiry Officer examining and cross-examining the witnesses as he is appointed to find out Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.1076/2016 the truth in the charges and such examination/cross- examination is aimed at that end only. However, the Inquiry Officer should refrain from searching cross-examination as this might affect his role as impartial authority".
x. In the instant case, a Presenting Officer was appointed and, as such, the Inquiry Officer could not have cross-examined the Defence Witness (DW). But, the IO went ahead and conducted searching cross-examination of the DW, contrary to his role as an impartial authority.
xi. It is also alleged that the evidence, both documentary as well as oral, establishes that Railway currency was utilized by the decoy for offering bribe. As per Para 307.6 of the IRVM 2006, prior to the trap, the decoy should present the money, which he will give to the target officer/employee, as bribe money, on demand. Neither the provisions of the IRVM nor any other rule empowers the Vigilance Wing to utilize Railway funds for offering bribe. In absence of any such provision, the act of the Vigilance Inspector as well as of the decoy amounts to misappropriation of Government funds which is a criminal offence under Section 409 of the IPC. The I.O. has also stated that, Para 307.6 of the IRVM "provides that the decoy should present the money prior to the trap". It clearly envisages that money from other sources should not be used for arranging trap. To justify the illegal stand of utilizing money from other source, the IO has resorted to an irrelevant interpretation and twist of the rule and has observed that "there shall be flexibility depending on circumstances".
The IO has became an author of the said rule, which is illegal and Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.1076/2016 totally contrary to the set of rules in force, i.e., money from other sources should not be used. Instead of acting as an independent authority, as required by rule and law, he became hand in glove with the Vigilance Department, in meeting their targets.
xii. The respondents ought to have seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. Delhi Administration, reported in 1979 (4) SCC 725, held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of prosecution in the absence of any evidence to prove the payment of bribe or to show that the Government Servant voluntarily accepted the money. In the case of S.K.Jain vs. Union of India, reported in SLJ 1989 (4) 953, the Apex Court held that considerable caution has to be exercised in accepting the version of the police officer who figures as witness in such a case. When the evidence given by the trap witness did not corroborate the charges of acceptance of bribe, the punishment was quashed.
xiii. It is further argued that the applicant has became a victim of injustice, as the Vigilance Department, in connivance with the I.O., has put the disciplinary proceedings in motion, throwing him out of service.
Hence, the OA.
4. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a detailed reply making the following submissions -
i. The OA is not maintainable under law for the reason that the applicant had accepted the punishment and availed all the retirement benefits, including the pension, being drawn every month. That being Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.1076/2016 the position, the applicant cannot subsequently seek modification of the penalty.
ii. The applicant was charge sheeted for imposition of major penalty, vide memorandum, dt.04.10.2012, and, following the due process, the charges were proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. This was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, duly indicating in his orders communicated to the applicant that revision petition against the said order could be filed to the Additional General Manager, South Central Railway, under Rule 25, or to the General Manager, under Rule 24(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said orders. But the applicant did not exhaust all the channels provided under the rules and accepted the penalty imposed by the D.A. and confirmed by the A.A. iii. According to the Respondents, while working as Welfare Inspector Grade I, the applicant was involved in a decoy check conducted by the Vigilance Branch of the South Central Railway, in the year 2012, and basing on the check, the applicant was placed under suspension and, later, transferred to the Office of the Chief Personnel Officer, on revocation of the suspension order. On the basis of the IO's Report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of "compulsory retirement from service", which the applicant accepted without going for revision. Retirement benefits have been paid to him. It is argued that the applicant is barred from approaching the Tribunal, in view of principle of estoppel. Besides, the claim of the applicant is premature Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.1076/2016 as the applicant did not prefer any application for revision of his punishment to the higher authority which was his right under Rule 24(2) or 25 of the R.S. (D&A) Rules, 1968. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed on these two grounds.
iv. It is contended that all the relied documents, based on which the charges were to be substantiated, were furnished to the applicant along with the charge memorandum. Non-submission of translated copies of documents, which were in Telugu language, does not amount to denial of natural justice, as the applicant is well conversant with the Telugu language and could have explained the contents to his Defence Assistant. The contention of the applicant, that the Inquiry Officer acted more as a prompter to the Presenting Officer and tried to fill up the gap left out by the PO and that the IO had already prejudged the issues, is not true. The IO had not put any searching questions but had only sought certain clarifications which were needed as a step-in-aid of early finalization of the inquiry proceedings.
v. It is submitted that, after receiving a complaint that the applicant had demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- from one Shri K.Sai Mohan Krishna, a decoy check was planned and, accordingly, GC note numbers, denomination wise were provided to the said complainant, by the Vigilance team. The document was signed by 7 witnesses, including the said complainant and the independent witnesses.
Thereafter, the complainant approached the applicant along with the independent witness. The said complainant has confirmed the same.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.1076/2016 The test check memo was prepared in the presence of one Sri K.Venkateswar Rao, incorporating the GC note numbers of the amount of Rs.5000/- entrusted to the complainant, Sri Sai Mohan Krishna. Besides, two witnesses viz. Sri M.Ashok Kumar and Sri Rathod Mohan, were also called to witness the proceedings of the check by the Vigilance team. The applicant signed the test check memo, prepared prior to the check, as per the laid down procedure.
The same was proved during the oral evidence in the inquiry and, hence, the contention of the applicant that the test memo was prepared after the check cannot be accepted. The IO, in his report, has held that the allegation of demand and collection stands sustained by the evidence on record.
vi. It is submitted that imposition of penalty is the sole discretion of the Disciplinary Authority which cannot be questioned until it is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010 in Prem Nath Bali vs. Reg., High Court of Delhi & Anr., held that -
"It is settled principle of law that once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved, then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factor relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules. Moreover, once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.1076/2016 punishment. Such power is exercised when the court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscience of the court or when it is found to be in contravention of the Rules. The Court, in such cases, remits the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other punishment as against what was originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the appointing authority".
vii. The applicant had preferred an appeal, dt.23.11.2015, and, after considering the appeal, the Appellate Authority (A.A.) held, vide his orders, dt.27.05.2016, that there is "no reason to modify the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. If the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is further reduced, it sends a wrong signal to other erring staff. Hence, the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement from Service" imposed on Shri J.V.N.Rajasekhar, Chief S & WI, CPO/O/SC by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dt.09.11.2015 is Confirmed. The applicant was advised to submit his revision petition, if any, against the order of the Appellate Authority. The applicant did not prefer any revision petition but filed this OA without exhausting all the channels of remedy available to him under the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968.
viii. Respondents have further submitted that, having accepted the pensionary benefits, the jural relationship of employer and employee, between the Applicant and the Respondent Dept., stood terminated.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRLTRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLIa8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYAdocument Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.1076/2016 The applicant is stopped from claiming that the penalty imposed on him should be altered, having accepted the retirement benefits and made the respondents to process his settlement dues.
ix. Further, according to the Respondents, the increasing criminal misconduct and corrupt practices committed by Govt. servants came to be noted by the Supreme Court, vide its decision in K.C.Sareen vs. CBI reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, it was observed as follows:
"Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity (Government). Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions."
x. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ram Singh reported in (2000) 5 SCC 88, has observed as follows:
"....Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."
xi. Respondents have cited Para 307.5 of IRVM, 2006 and stated that the applicant has not made out any case and as there is no merit in the OA, it is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material on record.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.1076/2016
6. Respondents have made a noteworthy submission in the Reply Statement. The same is reproduced below -
"In terms of Para 307.5 of IRVM, 2006, one more responsible and impartial witness/witnesses must hear the conversation, which should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification. This would squarely meet the likely defence of the accused that the money was actually received as loan or something else.
The transaction should be within the sight and hearing of the independent witness/witnesses.
It can be seen from the inquiry officer's report that he held Article-I (demanded and collected Rs.5000/- as bribe) of the charge as proved based on the evidence on record. However, the independent witness in the case has nowhere mentioned during the inquiry that he heard the conversation which establishes that the money was passed as illegal gratification and that the said transaction was within his sight/hearing.
Article-III (the transactions of Gold Loan & Personal Loan) of the charge was accepted by the charged employee himself that he had not intimated the Administration regarding the said transactions."
(emphasis supplied)
7. We have also taken note of the submission made by the Respondents at Para-
4(d) of the Reply Statement, which reads as below -
"...it is humbly submitted that after receiving a complaint that the applicant has demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- from one Shri K.Sai Mohan Krishna, a decoy check was planned and accordingly GC note numbers, denomination wise of the amount of Rs.5000/- was provided to the said complainant by the vigilance team. The document was signed by the 7 witness including the said complainant and independent witness. Thereafter the complainant approached the applicant along with the independent witness. The said complainant has confirmed the same. The test check memo was prepared in the presence of one Sri K.Venkateswar Rao incorporating GC note numbers of the amount of Rs.5000/- entrusted to the complainant Sri Sai Mohan Krishna. Besides, two witnesses viz. Sri M.Ashok Kumar and Sri Rathod Mohan were called to witness the proceedings of the check by the vigilance team. The applicant signed the test check memo prepared prior to the check as per the laid down procedure. The same was proved during the oral evidence in the inquiry and hence, there is no point in accepting contention of the applicant that the test memo was prepared after the check, thereby the inquiry Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.1076/2016 officer in his report held that the demand and collection stands sustained by the evidence on record." (emphasis supplied)
8. The rules in regard to trap, cited by the Respondents at Ann.A/R-VII, with the Reply statement are worth mentioning and are extracted below -
"307. Departmental Trap cases - Procedure & Guidelines:
307.1 The Railway Vigilance department also carries out decoy checks. These checks require careful planning, selection, execution and documentation for success. The need for a very good information network and regular flow of information from the field cannot be over emphasized, for it is only this that leads vigilance to the right person at the right time.
x x x x x 307.5 Proper execution of the trap is very important. The following important points should be kept in view:
(i) One or more responsible and impartial witness/witnesses must hear the conversation, which should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification. This would squarely meet the likely defence of the accused that the money was actually received as a loan or something else.
(ii) The transaction should be within the sight and hearing of the independent witness/witnesses.
(iii) There should be an opportunity to catch the culprit red-handed immediately after the bribe money has changed hands so that the accused may not be able to get rid of it.
(iv) The witnesses selected should not have appeared as witnesses in earlier cases of the department. It is safer to take as witness a Government employee who belongs to some other department.
(v) It is preferable to take a written complaint from the decoy. The complainant must specifically give the name of the person receiving the money, motive for receipt, the actual amount, date, time and place of the transaction.
307.6 Prior to the trap, the decoy should present the money, which he will give to the target officer/employee as bribe money on demand. A memo should be prepared by the investigating officer/inspector in the presence of the independent witnesses and the decoy indicating the numbers of the Government Currency (GC) Notes for legal and illegal transactions. This memo should be signed by the decoy, independent witness/witnesses and the investigating officer/inspector. Another memo, for returning the GC notes to the decoy, should be prepared for paying the bribe to the delinquent employee on demand. This memo should also be signed by the decoy, witnesses and the investigating officer/inspector.
307.7 At the time of the check, the independent witness/witnesses should take up position in such a place where they can see the transaction and also hear the conversation between the decoy and the delinquent employee, so as to satisfy themselves that money was demanded, given and accepted as bribe."
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.1076/2016 (emphasis supplied)
9. The applicant has raised two grounds for discrediting the claims of the Respondents in respect of the trap. He has alleged that no one had testified about the conversation regarding the said demand for bribe by him. Another allegation is that, contrary to the rules above, the GC Notes were provided to the decoy by the Vigilance team, whereas, it is the decoy who has to hand over the amount to the Vigilance team and their numbers shall be incorporated in the memo to be prepared by the IO/Inspector. Both the vital grounds raised by the applicant are actually corroborated by the Respondents themselves, as seen from their submissions highlighted in the foregoing paras 6 & 7, as they violate the "Procedure & Guidelines" laid down in Rule 307 of the IRVM (Ann.R-VII).
10. Respondents have cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Sareen vs. CBI, Chandgarh (Ann.R-V) and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Shri Ram Singh (Ann.R-VI). But we observe that these Supreme Court judgments, which have been pronounced in the context of corruption charges against public servants, cannot rescue the Respondents in the face of violations in the setting up of the trap during the decoy check in the present case.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has, on the other hand, relied upon the Apex Court judgment, dt.04.03.2008, in Moni Shankar vs. Union of India & Anr., wherein the Hon'ble Court has dealt with a specific case of decoy check in the course of which a booking supervisor with the Central Railways was found to have overcharged a sum of Rs.5/- on the ticket issued to a decoy passenger. He was also found having Rs.199/- short in his Railway cash and, further, the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.1076/2016 private cash declared was not certified by the Supervisor. On the basis of the charges drawn, the departmental proceedings were initiated. The relevant paras of this order are extracted below:
4. In the said departmental proceeding, appellant inter alia raised a contention as regard to non compliance of paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual (the Manual) in the manner in which the purported trap was laid. It was furthermore contended that provisions of Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules have not been complied with.
5. Appellant was found guilty of the said charges in the said departmental proceeding. A penalty of reduction to the lowest scale of pay fixing his pay at the lowest level at Rs.3,200/- for a period of five years was imposed. An appeal and consequently a revision preferred by him were dismissed by the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional Authority by orders dated 31st May, 2000 and 7th November, 2000 respectively.
6. He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. It was registered as O.A. No. 283 of 2002.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 6th January, 2003, the same was allowed opining that in terms of paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual, the trap ought to have been laid in presence of the independent witness or Gazetted Officer and as only one Head Constable of the RPF and not two Gazetted Officers had been assigned to witness the trap and furthermore the Head Constable was at a distance of more than 30 meters, he could not have heard the conversations by and between the appellant and the decoy passenger and thus the charges could not be said to have been proved. It was moreover found that the decoy passenger neither counted the money at the window nor protested that the balance amount was less by Rs.5/-, and in fact admitted to have left the window and came back half an hour later with the Vigilance Inspector which pointed out loopholes in the trap. It was pointed out that the appellant was not examined by the Enquiry Officer in terms of the provisions of Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (the Rules), which is mandatory in nature. It was also held that there was no evidence as regards the charge of returning Rs.5/- less to the complainant.
7. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of the Tribunal, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 8th March, 2006 the said writ petition was allowed by the High Court opining that the Central Administrative Tribunal in its original order having entered into the realm of evidence and re-appreciated the same, exceeded its jurisdiction.
x x x x
10. We may at the outset notice that with a view to protect innocent employees from such traps, appropriate safeguards have been provided in the Railway Manual.
Paragraphs 704 and 705 thereof read thus :-
"704. Traps
(i) ...
(ii) ...
(iii) ...Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRLTRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLIa8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYAdocument Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA.No.1076/2016
(iv) ...
(v) When laying a trap, the following important points have to be kept in view:
(a) Two or more independent witnesses must hear the conversation, which should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification to meet the defence that the money was actually received as a loan or something else, if put up by the accused.
(b) The transaction should be within the sight and hearing of two independent witnesses.
x x x x Departmental Traps For Departmental traps, the following instructions in addition to those contained under paras 704 are to be followed:
(a) The Investigating Officer/Inspector should arrange two gazetted officers from Railways to act as independent witnesses as far as possible. However, in certain exceptional cases where two gazetted officers are not available immediately, the services of non-gazetted staff can be utilised.
x x x x
(b) The decoy will present the money which he will give to the defaulting officers/employees as bribe money on demand. A memo should be prepared by the Investigating Officer/Inspector in the presence of the independent witnesses and the decoy indicating the numbers of the G.C. notes for legal and illegal transactions. The memo, thus prepared should bear the signature of decoy, independent witnesses and the Investigating Officer/Inspector. Another memo, for returning the G.C. notes to the decoy will be prepared for making over the G.C. notes to the delinquent employee on demand. This memo should also contain signatures of decoy, witnesses and Investigating Officer/Inspector. The independent witnesses will take up position at such a place where from they can see the transaction and also hear the conversation between the decoy and delinquent, with a view to satisfy themselves that the money was demanded, given and accepted as bribe a fact to which they will be deposing in the departmental proceeding at a later date. After the money has been passed on, the Investigating Officer/Inspector should disclose the identity and demand, in the presence of the witnesses, to produce all money including private, and bribe money. Then the total money produced will be verified from relevant records and memo for seizure of the money and verification particulars will be prepared. The recovered notes will be kept in an envelope sealed in the presence of the witnesses, decoy and the accused as also his immediate superior who should be called as a witness in case the accused refuses to sign the recovery memo, and sealing of the notes in the envelope.
14. While we say so we must place on record that this Court in the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Ors. vs. G. Ratnam and Ors. : (2007) 8 SCC 212 opined that non-adherence of the instructions laid down in Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual would not invalidate a departmental proceeding, stating :-
"17. We shall now examine whether on the facts and the material available on record, non-adherence of the instructions as laid down in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual would invalidate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents and Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA.No.1076/2016 rendering the consequential orders of penalty imposed upon the respondents by the authorities, as held by the High Court in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the departmental traps were conducted by the investigating officers when the respondents were on official duty undertaking journey on trains going from one destination to another destination. The Tribunal in its order noticed that the decoy passengers deployed by the investigation officers were RPF Constables in whose presence the respondents allegedly collected excess amount for arranging sleeper class reservation accommodation etc. to the passengers. The transaction between the decoy passengers and the respondents was reported to have been witnessed by the RPF Constables. In the facts and circumstances of the matters, the Tribunal held that the investigations were conducted by the investigating officers in violation of the mandatory Instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, on the basis of which inquiries were held by the Enquiry Officer which finally resulted in the imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the Railway Authority. The High Court in its impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Reports in the absence of joining any independent witnesses in the departmental traps, are found inadequate and where the Instructions relating to such departmental trap cases are not fully adhered to, the punishment imposed upon the basis of such defective traps are not sustainable under law. The High Court has observed that in the present cases the service of some RPF Constables and Railway staff attached to the Vigilance Wing were utilised as decoy passengers and they were also associated as witnesses in the traps. The RPF Constables, in no terms, can be said to be independent witnesses and non- association of independent witnesses by the investigating officers in the investigation of the departmental trap cases has caused prejudice to the rights of the respondents in their defence before the Enquiry Officers.
18. We are not inclined to agree that the non- adherence of the mandatory Instructions and Guidelines contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual has vitiated the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents by the Railway Authority. In our view, such finding and reasoning are wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained."
x x x x
21. .......The Tribunal was entitled to consider the question as to whether the evidence led by the department was sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of guilt or otherwise of the delinquent officer. While re-appreciation of evidence is not within the domain of the Tribunal, an absurd situation emanating from the statement of a witness can certainly be taken note of. The manner in which the trap was laid, witnessed by the Head Constable and the legality of enquiry proceeding were part of decision making process and, thus, the Tribunal was entitled to consider the same.
It was only for the aforementioned purpose that paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual have been invoked. It may be that the said instructions were for compliance of the Vigilance Department, but substantial compliance thereof was necessary, even if the same were not imperative in character. A departmental instruction cannot totally be ignored. The Tribunal was entitled to take the same into consideration alongwith other materials brought on records for the purpose Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA.No.1076/2016 of arriving at a decision as to whether normal rules of natural justice had been complied with or not.
21. The High Court unfortunately even without any material on record held that some excess amount was found from the appellant which itself was sufficient to raise a presumption that it had been recovered from the decoy passenger. No such presumption could be raised. In any event there was no material brought on records by the department for drawing the said inference. The High Court itself was exercising the power of judicial review. It could not have drawn any presumption without there being any factual foundation therefor. It could not have taken judicial notice of a fact which did not come within the purview of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act.
x x x x
23. The High Court has only noticed paragraph 704 of the Manual and not the paragraph 705 thereof. Paragraph 705 was very relevant and in any event both the provisions were required to be read together.
The High Court, thus, committed a serious error in not taking into consideration paragraph 705 of the Manual.
The approach of the High Court, in our opinion, was not entirely correct. If the safeguards are provided to avoid false implication of a railway employee, the procedures laid down therein could not have been given a complete go bye.
x x x x
25. The High Court also committed a serious error in opining that sub- rule (21) of Rule 9 of the Rules was not imperative. The purpose for which the sub-rule has been framed is clear and unambiguous. The railway servant must get an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him. In this case he has been denied from the said opportunity.
26. The cumulative effect of the illegalities/irregularities were required to be taken into consideration to judge as to whether the departmental proceeding stood vitiated or not.
27. For the aforementioned purpose, the manner in which the enquiry proceeding was conducted was required to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The trap was not conducted in terms of the Manual; the Enquiry Officer acted as a Prosecutor and not as an independent quasi judicial authority ; he did not comply with Rule 9(21) of the Rules, evidently, therefore, it was not a case where the order of the Tribunal warranted interference at the hands of the High Court.
27. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and that of the Tribunal restored. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-."
12. We find that the issues before us are squarely covered by the above ruling of the Apex Court. The procedural violations in the conduct of trap are too glaring to be ignored. The statement of the respondents itself is sufficient to confirm the objections raised by the applicant so far as the trap is concerned and going by Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 22 OA.No.1076/2016 the judgment of the Apex Court in Moni Shankar (supra), the matter is found to be no longer res integra.
13. Apart from the trap, the other (3) articles of charge pertain to non-intimation of certain transactions. Two of these charges have already been dropped and one charge pertaining to the transactions of Gold Loan & Personal Loan, is admitted by the applicant/charged employee. But, the proven charge of non-intimation would not by itself draw the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
Further, it is noted that the applicant was already compulsorily retired, vide order, dt.09.11.2015.
14. In the result, the impugned orders, dt.09.11.2015, and, dt.27.05.2016, imposing and confirming the penalty of compulsory retirement on the applicant, respectively, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits, under the rules, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. The OA is allowed, accordingly, Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
06.02.2026
/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
PANDIRL TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 APALLI a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba77 68772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 12:34:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0