Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D. Venkateswarlu vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 24 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(4)ALT412
ORDER S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This writ petition filed by a delinquent Officer is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, (for short 'the Tribunal'), Hyderabad Bench dated 19.11.2001 in O.A. No.1183/2000. In the said Original Application, the appellant herein sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 15.5.2000 issued to him on the ground of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal not being satisfied with that ground urged by the petitioner dismissed the Original Application. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a Review Application No.11/2000 seeking review of the order made in O.A. No.1183/2000. That review application was also dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 11.3.2002. Hence, this writ petition assailing both the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. The articles of charges and statement of imputation served on the petitioner-delinquent along with the charge sheet under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (discipline and appeal) Rules, 1968, dated 15.5.2000 read as follows:-
"DRAFT ARTICLES OF CHARGES TO BE FRAMED AGAINST SRI D.VENKATESWARLU, TTE/SL/RU.
Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU while working as such by T. No. 6010 of 5/6.8.96 in S-3 coach, had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming a railway servant in that:
"He had demanded and accepted Rs.60/- over and above the conversion charges of Rs.90/- from two passengers for providing confirmed accommodation in Sleeper Class Ex.MAS-GTL on the ticket No. 51044899."
Thus, he contravened Rule 3.1(i) (ii) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION.
Based on source of information that the TTEs working by T.No.6010 mail are in the habit of demanding and accepting extra money more than the Railway dues for providing accommodation in the Sleeper Class it was decided to conduct a departmental check on 5.8.1996 to verify the source.
Sri S. Babu, VI/MAS was nominated to act as a passenger and to approach the TTE for accommodation along with Sri Ramu, P. Man/SBC to overhear the transaction. Sri S. Babu was handed over with II M/E ticket No.51044899 for two adults Ex. MAS-GTL along with the marked currencies for Rs.150/- i.e., Rs. 50 x 1 Bkp 24477, Rs.10/- x 10 21b 613572 42k 776876 82v 677374 78u 008882 44e 633514 09k 326571 34a 993866 23v 480184 58s 055196 42s 132148 personal cash of Sri S. Babu and Sri T. Ramu, Pointsman/SBC were taken over by the vigilance and it was ensured that no identification card/travel authority was available with them. Further instructions were given Sri S. Babu to pay extra money to the TTE in case of specific demand and to ask for the receipt. Sri T. Ramu, Pointsman/SBC was instructed to overhear and to watch the transaction between Sri S.Babu and the TTE. Both of them were instructed to pass on the signal at AJJ to the vigilance waving their hands, incorporating the above a detailed proceeding was drawn at 22.10 hrs in VRR/MAS and signed by VI's and witness.
Sri S. Babu accompanied by Sri T. Ramu, Pointsman/SBC approached the TTE's of 6010 mail of 5.8.1996 on platform No. 9. The TTE of S.3 coach assured of giving accommodation and made entry in the ticket as S.3,9 and 10 and allowed them to wait. Between MAS-AJJ he made the allotment of the said seat/berth to Sri S. Babu and demanded Rs. 150/-, specifying the charges as Rs.90/- for conversion and Rs.60/- extra for allotment. He issued receipt No. 316369 for Rs.90/- and accepted Rs.150/- i.e., Rs.60/- more than the receipt amount.
Since there was a specific demand and acceptance of Rs.60/- extra the signals was communicated to vigilance team at AJJ.
On getting the signals from Sri S. Babu the vigilance team entered into S.3 coach along with Sri B. Venkatasubramanian, Sr. CC/RPM, the independent witness at AJJ to conduct the check. Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU was manning the S.3 coach only. Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU was asked to produce his railway cash as well as personal cash. It was also ensured at the time of check that Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU was not in possession of any other cash value books except EFT book No.l3163350 to 316399 at the time of check. Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU produced Rs.21/- as his personal cash against the declared amount of Rs.25/-. Further, he produced Rs.402/- as railway cash against the railway transaction of Rs.342/-.Incorporating the currency numbers a detailed cash statement was given by Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU. Thereby Rs.60/- was found excess in the railway cash produced by Sri D.Venakteswarlu, TTE/SL/RU. On questioning about the excess amount of Rs.60/-, Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU accepted that the Rs.60/- had been demanded and accepted from two passengers to whom he had allotted berth No.9 and 10 upto GTL. The occupants Sri S. Babu and Sri T. Ramu, Pointsman/SBC were called in and asked to narrate the transaction between them and the TTE. Sri S. Babu stated that, he along with Sri T. Ramu, Pointsman/SBC approached the TTE Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU at MAS for allotment of berth. Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU allotted the berth at MAS platform. On train between MAS/AJJ he demanded and accepted Rs.150/- and issued receipt for Rs.90/- only. Sri T. Ramu, Pointsman/SBC also corroborated the above statement of Sri S. Babu identifying Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU the TTE to whom Rs.150/- was given as per demand.
Sri B. Venkatasubramanian, SR.CC/ RPM was given the proceeding drawn for purpose of check and asked to verify the currencies with the cash statement along with currencies produced by Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU and to pick out the marked currencies.
Accordingly, Sri B. Venkata subramanian, Sr. CC/RPM picked out Rs.150/- in the following denomination from the Railway cash produced by Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU.
Rs.50 x 1 8 kp 244477 Rs. 10 x 10 21b 613572 42k 776876 82v 677374 78u 008882 44e 633514 09k 326571 34a 993866 23v 480184 58s 055196 42s 132148 The proceeding drawn for the purpose of check was shown to Sri D. Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU and he signed for having seen it. The above marked currencies were replaced and taken over by vigilance with the instruction to remit the excess in Railway Cash Rs.60/-. The II M/E ticket No. 51044899 Ex. MAS-GTL for two Adult dt. 5.8.96 along with conversion receipt EFT No. 316369 for Rs.90/- was taken over by vigilance from Sri S. Babu. The charts of S.3 coach were taken over by the Vigilance. Sri D.Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU remitted Rs.60/- vide EFT No. 316394. Incorporating above details of the check proceedings drawn and signed by all. Thus, from the above it is clearly established that Sri D.Venkateswarlu, TTE/SL/RU had demanded and accepted extra money for allotment of berth."
3. We have heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The same contentions which were pressed into service before the Central Administrative Tribunal were urged before us also. The learned counsel contended that four years delay from the date of incidence of misconduct alleged against the petitioner could not be considered to be a small delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and, therefore, such a delay could be overlooked. Sri J. Sudhir, contended that on account of inordinate delay of four years and more in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner is denied an effective and proper defence on account of time lag and, therefore, he would be subjected to prejudice. Sri J. Sudhir also drew our attention to Model Time Schedule for progress of major penalty DAR cases issued by the administration of Western Railway vide its proceedings No. E9DAR)308/0 Vol. VII dated 8.9.1994 and contended that even as per the Model Time Schedule, the departmental enquiry initiated against a delinquent employee is required to be completed within a period of 365 days and that looking from that angle also, there was absolutely no justification for the railway administration to initiate departmental enquirya fter lapse of four years.
4. It is well settled that the High Court can step in under Article 226 and entertain a writ application filed against a charge memo only under two circumstances, namely, (i) Where the charge memo is issued by an incompetent or unauthorized authority under the Rules or (ii) Where the authority which has issued the charge memo is disabled in law to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent. These are not the grounds urged in the present writ application. Of course, the Courts have interfered with the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings where the Courts found that on account of the delay in initiating proceedings, the delinquent was subjected to apparent prejudice in defending himself against the charges. In order to decide whether four years delay on the part of the disciplinary authority landed the delinquent in such an adverse situation is undoubtedly a pure question of fact, and answer to the question, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and that if that is the situation obtaining in this case as per the petitioner, it is always open to him to urge that ground at an appropriate stage after leading the evidence in that regard and not at the threshold of issuance of charge memo. The Model Time Schedule for progress of major penalty DAR cases referred to above, to which our attention was drawn by Sri J. Sudhir, learned Counsel, would not come in the way of the disciplinary authority from initiating disciplinary proceedings after lapse of 365 days from the date of incidence constituting the misconduct alleged against the delinquent official. In fact, the above Model Time Schedule for progress of major penalty DAR Cases has no application as regards initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Model Time Schedule for progress of major penalty DAR cases is essentially meant to guide the disciplinary authorities to conduct and complete disciplinary proceedings within a time frame. From the Model Time Schedule for progress of major penalty DAR cases, it cannot be said that under no circumstance the disciplinary authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of 365 days in the case of major penalty from the date of alleged incidence constituting a misconduct under the Conduct Rules nor can it be said that if a disciplinary proceeding is not conducted and completed within a period of 365 days from the date of initiation of the proceeding, such proceeding should be abandoned.
5. In conclusion, we do not find any substantive or weighty reasons to intercept or interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Railway administration at this stage.
6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner is granted two weeks time from today to file statement of defence to the impugned charge memo, if not already filed.