JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 23.02.2017 passed in O.A. No. 142 of 2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment inflicted in disciplinary proceeding along with the appellate and revisional orders on the basis of penalty being shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that while the respondent was working as Senior Commercial Clerk at Murliganj, a trap was organized by the vigilance on 13/14.02.2007 in which it was found that he was involved in obtaining excess money from passengers and not declaring the cash properly, which is violative of Rule 3.1(i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

3. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated on 07.06.2007 wherein the following imputations of charges were drawn :

Article (i).- He demanded from the decoy passenger Rs.990/- as fare for four tickets from Murliganj to Ludhiana whereas the actual fare at the rate of Rs.234/-each ticket was Rs.936/-. Thus, he collected Rs.54/- excess from the decoy passenger illegally.

Article (ii).- He was found having Rs.267/- short in the railway cash during his shift of duty.

Article (iii).- He had not declared Rs.10/- of his personal cash.

4. In the departmental proceeding, the respondent submitted his reply refusing the allegations. The inquiry officer having completed the inquiry found the respondent guilty of all the three charges. He submitted his detailed inquiry report on 19.02.2009. Thereafter, the respondent was given a second show-cause notice, which was replied by him.

5. Having appreciated the materials on record including the reply to the second show-cause, the Disciplinary Authority held that charge no. 1 was not established and charge nos. 2 and 3 were established. A penalty of reduction of three stages annual increment of pay with cumulative effect for the period of two years was imposed.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.01.2011.

7. The Appellate Authority while affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority opined that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is adequate and commensurate with the gravity of the wrong done by the respondent.

8. Thereafter, the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur being the Revisional Authority, issued a second show-cause notice dated 14.07.2011 asking the respondent as to why the order of punishment be not enhanced as the allegations levelled against him were grave and serious.

9. After receiving the show-cause reply from the respondent, the Revisional Authority revised the penalty as reduction of three stages annual increment of pay with cumulative effect for the period of four years.

10. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the respondent filed O.A. No. 141/2013 before the Tribunal.

11. Though the Tribunal did not interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, it quashed the orders dated 17.11.2009, 19.01.2011 and 12.08.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority and directed the Revisional Authority to pass appropriate orders with regard to penalty. While quashing the aforesaid orders, the Tribunal was of the view that the penalty imposed by the authorities was far too disproportionate to the proved charges.

12. Assailing the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, Mr. Kumar Alok, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Trib