Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.

1.The petitioner was working as Inquiry Reservation Supervisor with the Central Railway. Charge-sheet was issued to him on 12/2/01. Shortly stated the charge against the petitioner was that while working as Inquiry Reservation Supervisor, he made special cancellations for four journey C.P. tickets amounting to a total of Rs.35,036/- and pocketed the said amount. He had thus defrauded the railway administration to the tune of Rs.35,036/-.

2. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 6/9/01 with his findings. The said report is dated 12/2/01. We must refer to the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer because the learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on those conclusions. The said conclusions are as under:

(i) The Spl. Cancellation were made on the ID OF THE CE. However, it cannot be said that the CE had himself resorted to spl. cancellation.

(ii) The amount of debit of Rs.35,036/- is to be recovered from the wages of the CE, because his ID was used.

(iii) The CE had remained careless on account of which his ID could be used.

(iv) There is no direct evidence to prove that the CE had either defrauded the Rly. Admn. Or misappropriated the said amount. It is a case of admitted debit. The loss was caused to Rly.. because of his (CE) carelessness and negligence."

3. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Copy of the enquiry report and the note of disagreement were served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 22/1/02. The Disciplinary Authority considered the petitioner’s representation. After going through the representation, the enquiry report and available evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority held that the charges against the petitioner are proved and he imposed penalty of removal from service vide order dated 12/2/02.

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on 13/5/2002. The petitioner filed a revision application which was rejected on 30/10/02. Compilation of these orders is made available to us by Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Both these orders are speaking orders. The petitioner filed a mercy petition which was rejected by the General Manager. The petitioner thereafter preferred original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay being O.A. No. 260 of 2004. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the original application. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and hence this petition.

5. We have heard at considerable length learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the enquiry officer has given a finding that charge of misappropriation or defrauding the railway administration is not proved for want of proper documentary evidence. He has held that loss was caused because of the petitioner’s negligence or carelessness and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority could not have taken a different view. He submitted that in the circumstances the Disciplinary Authority’s order ought to have been set aside by the Tribunal. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal does not deal with the submissions advanced by the petitioner. It is a perverse order and hence it may be set aside. He submitted that in any event the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate and, therefore, this court may set aside the punishment and substitute it by any other prescribed punishment considering the fact that the petitioner has rendered 22 years’ of service.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order.

7. It must be stated here at the outset that in the original application as the prayer clause indicates the petitioner had challenged only the charge-sheet dated 12/2/01, the petitioner had not