Smt. ROSHAN DALVI, J. :-

The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service.

2. The petitioner served as a Booking Clerk for issuing daily tickets with respondent no.1. A departmental enquiry came to be held against the petitioner with respect to certain manipulations in the records and overcharging a decoy passenger by Rs.25/- whilst he served as a Booking Clerk and issued the ticket to the passenger. The Inquiry Officer recommended the punishment of removal from service upon one of the two charges being proved against the petitioner. That was the charge in respect of the overcharging of the decoy passenger by Rs.25/-. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the recommendation and removed the petitioner from service. Appeal there from failed on 19.6.2002. A further order was passed in revision by the Revisional Authority on 10.10.2002. An Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which, by its order dated 15.9.2004, refused to interfere with the impugned order. That order, Exhibit-A to the petition, has essentially been challenged.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the decoy passenger, who accompanied a Constable and had lodged a complaint against the petitioner, was to be given ticket from Khadavli to Pune. Two and half tickets cost Rs.115/-. The decoy passenger handed over Rs.200/- to the petitioner. Instead of returning change of Rs.85/-, the petitioner returned the change of Rs.60/- and consequently, charged the passenger to the extent of Rs.25/-.

4. Mr. Bagaria for the petitioner has confined himself to the question of the punishment awarded to the petitioner. We have noted that even Rule, in this case, has been issued only on the question of proportion of the punishment to the misconduct proved.

5. We have seen that the misconduct is overcharging in respect of the small amount. The punishment is of removal from service. We have to consider whether we find that punishment so shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner that we would persuade ourselves to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority confirmed in appeal. in revision, before the CAT and then sought to be challenged in this petition.

6. Though undoubtedly the overcharging is to a very limited extent, it is only with regard to that decoy passenger. It is in respect of a case in which the petitioner has been watched and caught. It leaves out the numerous instances when the petitioner may not have been watched and caught. Each passenger is a victim. Each passenger has consequently been cheated and defrauded to that extent. The fact that the petitioner could overcharge a passenger whilst being under vigilance and scrutiny showed that the petitioner took advantage of either the ignorance or the illiteracy of the victim. It shows a dishonest attitude of the Government servant. It causes financial loss to the institution he serves. It results in criminal breach of trust between the third party contracting with the institution as also qua the petitioner in the service of that institution. It results in misappropriation of funds as it would cause unlawful loss to the third party and unlawful gain to the petitioner. In a given case, albeit to that limited extent, misappropriation of each small amount may cause unlawful loss to that extent to the institution and the corresponding unlawful gain to the petitioner by the use of such dishonest means and by misconducting himself.

7. It is in this light that it is a settled position in law through various judgments of the Apex Court that the quantum of the amount misappropriated, stolen or defrauded is not the yardstick to determine the extent of the punishment. No matter what is the amount the conduct betrays the trust of the institution in its worker. The institution, therefore, loses confidence in the worker. That institution, therefore, is entitled, upon proof of the misconduct, to remove such emp