RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard Sri P.K. Verma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhinav Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway and its authorities have filed the present writ application for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), Patna Bench, Patna in Original Application (in short the „O.A.?) No. 246/2014, by which the learned Tribunal has been pleased to set aside the order dated 26.06.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing a minor punishment of reduction of one stage in time scale of pay for a period of one month without cumulative effect upon the applicant-respondent no. 1.

3. The brief facts of the case, as appearing from the pleadings of the parties, are as under:—

Respondent no. 1 while working as Deputy FA and CAO in East Central Railway, Hajipur was served with a memorandum of charges dated 05.06.2012. The charges against applicant-respondent no. 1 are quoted hereunder:-

“During a Preventive Check conducted by Railway Board Vigilance team in Train no. 2309, Patna Rajdhani Express on 18.10.2007 between ALJN-NDLS, the following irregularities were detected:-

During the check in H-I Coach in Coupe “C” of the said train, Smt. Pushpa Rani, the then Dy. FA&CAO[F&B]/ECR was found traveling on upper berth on the authority of 1st Class ‘A’ card pass bearing No. 2543 issued by GM [Personnel]/ECR. She was also having a ticket in 2AC on the strength of a Bronze Pass No. 008 and allotted two berths through EQ, which shows carelessness on the part of Smt. Pushpa Rani, the then Dy. FA&CAO.

Hence Smt. Pushpa Rani failed to bring on the notice of pass issuing authority by herself. Secondly, she was found using two different traveling authorities at same time.

Thus the said Smt. Pushpa Rani, the then Dy. FA&CAO/ECR by her act of omission & commission failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3.1(i) and (iii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.”

By serving the memorandum of charges as aforesaid, a proceeding under Rule 11 of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, was initiated against respondent no. 1.

4. A reply was filed by respondent no. 1 to the memo of charges, however a minor punishment of reduction of one stage in time scale for one month without cumulative effect was imposed upon her vide order dated 26.06.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. This led to filing of O.A. No. 246/2014 in which impugned order has been passed by learned Tribunal.

Stand of the Applicant before the Disciplinary Authority and in O.A.

5. The applicant-respondent no. 1 defended the charges and assailed the order dated 26.06.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority in same vehemence as according to her a preliminary inquiry conducted by Sri Ravi Chaturvedi, Joint Director/Director, Vigilance, revealed that the charges were baseless and hence the respondent no. 1 was exonerated. The said preliminary inquiry report was said to have been accepted by the competent authority. Further, the applicant-respondent no. 1 in her detailed reply denied the allegations stating that the very joint note on the basis of which the inquiry was initiated was worthless as the Member of Legislative Assembly, Sri Vijayendra Kumar Yadav, who was traveling in Coupe ‘C’ on 18.10.2007 and whose signature has been shown on the joint note prepared by Vigilance team had denied his signature. In fact, it is not in dispute that Sri Vijayendra Kumar Yadav, MLA, vide his letter dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure A/6 to the O.A.) had categorically stated that he had never signed on any joint report alleged to have been made on 18.10.2007. The MLA had in fact stated that his signature appears to have been forged on the joint note. Despite repeated letter written by the Vigilance D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document