Ravindra V. Ghuge J.

01. By an order dated 14/07/2006, this petition was admitted.

02. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge his “compulsory removal from service” effected by the Respondent employer dated 27/12/2001 and the judgment of CAT dated 30/09/2004 whereby his original application was dismissed.

03. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. The submissions of Shri.M.S.Karnik, learned advocate for the petitioner can be summarized as under :

a) The petitioner was appointed as a 'Booking Clerk' with the respondent-Railway Department.

b) He was posted as a 'Booking Clerk' at the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, Mumbai.

c) On 26/11/1999, the petitioner was issued with a chargesheet.

d) Two charges were levelled against him. The first charge was that he had over charged the Decoy passenger by Rs.2/- and the second charge was that Rs.122/- were found short in the railway cash.

e) The petitioner in his written say denied the charges and has explained his case through his reply dated 30/11/2000.

f) The petitioner stated that the Decoy passenger had carried the currency notes of 100 and 50.

g) The Decoy passenger was asked to wait in order to accept the change of Rs.2/-, which was supposed to be returned to him.

h) Since the petitioner did not have the necessary change, the Decoy passenger should have waited as per his instructions, but he went away.

i) The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 30/11/2000 after concluding the inquiry.

j) A copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was supplied to the petitioner and his explanation was called for.

k) The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 28/05/2001, explaining his stand and denying having committed any misconduct.

l) By the order dated 18/07/2001, the Disciplinary Authority awarded a major punishment to the petitioner by effecting his “removal from service” from 30/07/2001.

m) The petitioner was given the opportunity of preferring an appeal within 45 days to the Appellate Authority as per rules.

n) The petitioner moved an appeal dated 04/09/2001 to the Appellate Authority thereby requesting it to reconsider the case of the petitioner, set aside the order of punishment and reinstate the petitioner in service.

o) By an order dated 18/09/2001, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. However, he was given the liberty to prefer a Revision Petition within 45 days as per rules.

p) The petitioner moved a Revision Petition to the Revisional Authority on 24/10/2001. The same request was made to the Revisional Authority as was made to the Appellate Authority.

q) By the impugned order dated 27/12/2001, the Revisional Authority upon considering the Revision Petition of the petitioner, passed a reasoned order thereby reducing the punishment initially awarded to the petitioner from “removal from service” to “compulsory retirement from service”.

r) By the reduction of the punishment, the petitioner stood to gain all retiral benefits as well as the liberty to obtain Government employment, which he was deprived of by the order of punishment dated 18/07/2001.

s) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27/12/2001 issued by the Revisional Authority before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai (“C.A.T. in short) on 20/11/2002.

t) The original application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the impugned judgment and order of the C.A.T. dated 30/09/2004.

u) It is stated that the Vigilance Department has influenced the Disciplinary Authority by it's communication dated 20/06/2001 and 03/07/2001.

v) Had the Vigilance Department not influenced the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner would not have been awarded the impugned punishment, since the punishment of reversion in rank was being proposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

w) The two communications dated 20/06/2001 and 03/07/2001 from the Vigilance Department and the reply of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28/06/2001 clearly indicate that the Disciplinary Authority had proposed the punishme