Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The applicant further states that on 4.10.2012 the Vigilance Staff came for checking in the train after Meerut in Chhattisgarh Express in which the applicant was on duty. This was the first every vigilance check conducted on the applicant. Normally a check through a decoy customer is done against officers whose work is under cloud in the light of complaints made against him unlike the case of the applicant. At the relevant time the applicant at approximately 10.30 P.M. was having verbal feud with a decoy customer who was insisting the applicant to receive Rs.200/- from him instead of the amount which was being asked for by him as per norms i.e. Rs.500/- as fine + Rs.102/- for tickets as difference of fare between general and sleeper class. Simultaneously, he was giving ticket to two persons from Meerut to Ludhiana since those travelers had told the applicant that the man (decoy customer) will keep on arguing with applicant and as such he should give them ticket in the meantime. They paid Rs.650 out of which the cost of ticket was to be deducted i.e. Rs.624/- and the balance returned. Again the decoy customer came in between and pressed the applicant to finish of his deal for Rs.200/- and at the same time the Vigilance Staff came in and took away the reservation chart, amount and excess fare ticket. The passenger insisted that since they have paid the money, their ticket should be given, but they were told that the TT will make the ticket after checking is finished and they should wait. Later, the vigilance staff got down with the applicant at Saharanpur, completed the formalities to make a class and the applicant was advised not to spoil relation with senior officers. On the same night at Jagadhari Station the two travellers who were yet to be issued tickets by applicant having paid for it made a complaint No. 28, 29 and 30 in the complaint book of same train.

(j)The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, punitive, against the policy, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed a common reply statement. They submit that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the policy letter dated 2.11.1998 read with Rule 226 of IREC Vol. I which reiterates the policy of internal divisional / inter-railway transfer of ticket checking staff detected to be indulging in malpractices as also the other staff in mass contact areas. There is basic commonality of facts and circumstances involved in the present case and that of the petitioner in Ganesh Din Vs. UOI. The legal validity of Circular dated 2.11.1998 was upheld by Honble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 6082 of 2005 in the case of Shri Ganesh Din Vs. Union of India & Others (Annexure R-1) in which it was held that as per policy decision / circular dated 2.11.1998, the transfer need not await the completion of departmental inquiry. The case is also covered by law laid down in 2004 (2) SLR 15 - Union of India Vs. Janardhan Debnath and by this Tribunal in O.A.No. 3190PB-2012 and O.A.No. 470-PKB-2012 which were dismissed on 2.7.2012. The allegations against respondents No. 5 and 6 are based on false statements, tempered documents and without the required proof. Malafide has to be judged from the plausibility of the allegations made by a person who has been found to have been indulging in malpractices. The allegations were made by the applicant after having been caught red handed during vigilance check involving a team of officers. The impugned order has been passed after case file passed through various hierarchical superior of respondents No. 5 and 6. A roving inquiry cannot be made by a court of law. The applicant has been issued charge sheet dated 29.11.2012 (R-2) and he can defend himself in disciplinary proceedings. The applicant has tried to fabricate evidence and temper with the record after having been found indulging in malpractices and bringing discredit to the railway service. He is a habitual offender and compulsive litigant. He had made an application on 22.1.2007 admitting his guilt and seeking mercy (Annexure R-5). On 2.2.2007 he was awarded penalty of withholding of increment permanently, which was revoked by the competent authority. The applicant had himself withdrawn the CWP No.3276 of 2011 by filing a C.M. 11034/2011. It is apparent from Annexure R-3, EFT No. 658130 that applicant made remarks to save himself and implicate his superiors. He is guilty of tempering. He is guilty of making a false statement. Decoy check was based on source information that TTEs manning Chhattisgarh Express were indulging in carrying ticketless/irregular passengers and as such a decoy check was conducted which is a matter of disciplinary proceedings. The transfer is as per rules and law.