Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(As per Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member) Through Video Conferencing:

2. The OA is filed with a prayer to set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dt. 03.05.2011, as confirmed by the appellate authority and the revising authority vide orders dt. 06.11.2013 and 17.02.2014 respectively and to consequently, reinstate the applicant.
3. Brief facts are that the applicant appointed as Probationary Ticket Collector in the respondents organization by the Chief Personnel Officer (for short "CPO") on 06.11.1980. While working as Dy. Chief Ticket Inspector, applicant was subjected to Vigilance check in Train No. 2727 on 19.05.2009 and issued a Charge Memo dt. 25.08.2009 under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 [for brevity "RSDA Rules"], containing 2 articles of charge. Inquiry was conducted and charges were held to be proved and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 3.5.2011, which was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dt. 06.11.2013 and by the revising authority vide order dt. 17.02.2014. Aggrieved, OA is filed.

5. Respondents per contra, state that the applicant demanded Rs.1200/- from decoy passenger and allowed him along with 3 others holding II Class tickets to travel in AC II Tier coach, A-1 in berth Nos. 2, 6, 44 & 46 without granting any receipt. Applicant produced Rs.1200 excess in private cash and Rs.8 in Government cash. Charge memo dt. 25.8.2099 was issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Secunderabad (for short "DCM") and after conducting due inquiry as per procedure, penalty of Compulsory Retirement was imposed on 3.5.2011 by Sr. DCM, Secunderabad who is the appointing authority of the applicant. Appeal and revision petition preferred thereon were rejected. CPO is not the appointing authority since he only communicates the selection. Letter of appointment is issued after selection and the authority, who issues the said letter is the appointment authority. Thus, Sr. DCM is the Appointment authority for applicant. After issue of charge sheet, applicant sought additional documents one after another through interim replies and observing the same, IO was appointed on 22.02.2010. Applicant has not raised any objection about the IO working under the control of Sr. Dy. General Manager (Sr. DGM), Vigilance, while the inquiry was on. IO appointed is competent and his past experience has no relation to the conduct of inquiry. Applicant attributed bias to the I.O after failing to stall the inquiry proceedings. Vigilance check was done as per procedure. As per Railway Board instructions, appointing a PO is not mandatory, Exhibits were not marked during preliminary inquiry, but during the regular inquiry. On appeal, penalty was confirmed, after careful examination by the appellate authority, Inquiry proceedings were conducted following the Principles of Natural Justice. Vigilance check was conducted based on source information that ticket checking staff are indulging in certain malpractices. Results of vigilance checks are communicated to disciplinary authority in the form of draft charges which are examined and only if required, charge memo is issued. Due to revision of schedule of powers, though the charge memo was issued by DCM, it was transferred to Sr. DCM, who is the controlling authority, under Rule 10(3) of RSDA Rules. The contentions raised in para 5.5 (i) to (viii) have been discussed by IO. There is no bar to select decoy passenger from same department. Appellate authority and revision authority have arrived at the respective decisions after discussing the case at length. Applicant received terminal benefits only after OA 494/2011 was dismissed. If relief is granted to the applicant, it would amount to premium to proven misconduct committed by him.

VIII. The sum and synopses of the inquiry is that there is evidence to prove the charges. The applicant has taken Rs.1200/- from the decoy passengers and has not issued the receipt. The explanation given by the applicant is that the decoy and witnesses were asked to pay Rs.3200/-, but they said they will pay the balance after applicant completes the ticket checking in another coach. Primarily, applicant should either demand total amount of Rs.3200/- as per rule or not allow the decoy and others in the AC coach. There is no rule which allows the applicant to accept part amount and allow the decoy with others to travel in AC coach. Therefore, the applicant has infringed the norm by taking law into his hands. Only after about 20 minutes, the vigilance inspector and his team confronted the applicant about the episode. The inquiry report conclusively establishes that the applicant has demanded and accepted the amount of Rs.1200/-, from the decoy, without granting any receipt. Consequently, this amount was obviously found to be excess in the personal cash. Moreover, when the decoy and others could not pay the total amount, the minimum thing that would have been done was to restrict the number of berths to be allotted to the amount paid and given receipt. Thereafter, when the balance was paid the others should have been allotted the births or else direct them to their entitled class. The applicant has not done so and hence, the needle of suspicion undoubtedly points towards the applicant. Thus, the contention of the applicant that there is no evidence to hold the charges proved is incorrect.