RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard Sri Gautam Bose, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pravin Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uma Kant Prasad Verma, learned counsel for the Railway.

2. The sole petitioner, in the present case, is seeking quashing of the order dated 10.03.2017, passed in O.A. No. 546 of 2013, by a Division Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “CAT"), Patna Bench, Patna and also for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 1,48,900/- which has been withheld from the retiral dues of the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case which are not in dispute are as under:

I. Petitioner happens to be an employee of Railway and while he was posted as Commercial Superintendent, Parcel Office, East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur during the year 2009-10, he had been involved in four bookings of Van Parcel Unit (in short ‘V.P.U.’) from the additional counters. The V.P.Us. were booked for carrying Litchi during the season as usual from Muzaffarpur to Lokmanya Tilak Terminal.

II. The petitioner booked all the four V.P.Us. charging at Standard Scale (Scale-“S”), whereas, as per the Freight Marketing Circular bearing no. 1/2007, he should have charged at Premium Rate Scale (“P-Scale”). This resulted in a monetary loss of approximately Rs. 1,18,900/- to the Railway.

III. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2013 as Commercial Superintendent no. 1, East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur. Upon his retirement, when he received a statement of payment of his retiral dues issued on 05.02.2013, it transpired that the respondents authority have withheld a sum of Rs. 1,48,900/- from the amount of gratuity, which was said to be the under charged debit amount for booking of V.P.U. of 2009-10. A photocopy of statement of payment of retiral dues has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ application.

Stand of petitioner.

4. The petitioner moved before the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna vide O.A. No. 546/2013, and prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 1,48,900/- to the applicant upon holding that the applicant is not responsible for under charged debit in question and no recovery can be made from the applicant. According to the petitioner, Rule 962 and 1820 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual provide for charging of the under charged amount of freight from consignee at the receiving station at the time of delivery of goods which was not done in the present case, and therefore, the receiving station was also responsible. His main thrust of argument centers around the circular dated 24.01.2017, issued by the Ministry of Railway, Government of India, to all the General Manager, regarding chargeability of V.P.U. booking at Scale-“P” in place of Scale-“S” was not circulated in the Parcel Office and even the Senior Officers and Inspectors/Supervisors had no knowledge of the said circular which resulted in booking of the V.P.Us. at the rate Scale-“S”.

Stand of the respondents

5. On the other hand, the respondents have taken a categorical stand in paragraph 13 of their written statement that the instruction, as contained in the circular no. 1/2007, was received under East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur and the same was circulated to the concerned station including the posting place of the applicant through letter no. C/386/1/RC/CG/2007 dated 21.02.2007, which was duly received in the office where the applicant was working. Therefore, the plea with regard to the non-receipt of the relevant circular and the same not having been circulated, as stated by the applicant, is completely false, baseless and incorrect. A copy of letter dated 21.02.2007 has been enclosed with the written statement of the respondents as Annexure-R/2.

6. Although, the petitioner who was applicant before the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna filed a reply to the written statement filed by the respondents, but the categorical statement made in paragraph-13 of the written statement has not been substantially denied, as it wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document