Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI, VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Parmarthak - Appellant
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench Jaipur - Respondent
Civil Writs No. 7229 of 2010
Decided On : 12-07-2018
Rajvir Sharma, Adv., D.S. Poonia, Adv.
The court held that the procedure followed by the authorities was just and proper, and that the order of the disciplinary authority was based on a reasoned order and complied with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
RAILWAY SERVICE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DOUBLE SALARY - DISMISSAL - VALIDITY - FACTUAL FINDINGS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - NATURAL JUSTICE - EXPERT OPINION - CROSS-EXAMINATION - EVIDENCE - REASONED ORDER - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a railway employee, was dismissed from service after being found guilty of drawing double salary from two different places. The inquiry officer, disciplinary authority, and appellate authority all upheld the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed both the review application and the original application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the procedure followed by the authorities was just and proper. The petitioner was found to have drawn salary twice, which is not permissible under law. The refunding of the amount did not absolve him from criminal liability and disciplinary proceedings. The court also held that the order of the disciplinary authority was just and proper, and that it would not exercise powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for such a person who had committed a grave misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the dismissal order was valid in light of the factual findings and the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert whose opinion was relied upon against him? 3. Whether the disciplinary authority's order was based on a reasoned order and complied with the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the procedure followed by the authorities was just and proper. The petitioner was found to have drawn salary twice, which is not permissible under law. The refunding of the amount did not absolve him from criminal liability and disciplinary proceedings. 2. The court did not address the issue of whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert. 3. The court held that the disciplinary authority's order was based on a reasoned order and complied with the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the review application as well as original application filed by the applicant-petitioner herein.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC on 12.1.1983 and within a very short span of time in 5 years, he has shown his colour for which he was issued charge sheet alleging that he received double payment of salary from two different places since August, 1996 to January 1997. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who after conducting the inquiry arrived at the finding that charges against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal which was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as tribunal.
3. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharma has taken us to para no.7 of the petition which reads as under:-
7. Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by a Railway servant to the Government or Railway Administration by negligence or breach of orders-It is open to the competent authority to inflict in addition to the penalty of recovery from pay of the loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders by any of the penalties specified in clause (i), (ii), (iii-a) (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Rule 6 of the R.S. (D & A) Rules 1968 by way of one and the same order and in pursuance of one and the same proceedings.
In this case the petitioner does not admit that he has caused any loss to railway and he has received double salary but even then for the sake of argument whatever loss by any person has been caused to Railway such loss has been recovered by the department from the applicant. Therefore, the penalty or removal and dismissal could not have been passed in this case so the impugned order of removal is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Since, the learned Tribunal has not considered this law and fact therefore the judgment of learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
3.1 He also taken us to the various documents of railway department and contended that since the amount is recovered, penalty of dismissal of the petitioner is not warranted.
3.2 He also taken us to the Government Circular dt. 15.11.1984 which reads as under:-
Govt. of India
Ministry of Railway (Railway Board)
No.B-4/vig.I/DAR/1/2
15.11.1984
No.B-4/vig.I/DAR/1/2
To
The General Manager (Vigilance)
All Zonal Railway and Production Units
Sub: Framing of charge sheets
A case has been come to the notice of the Railway Board where in statement of certain persons were listed as relied upon documents in the charge sheet. However, the concerned persons were not listed as witnesses during the enquiry to corroborate the charges. As the uncorroborated statements of the witnesses carry on evidentiary value central vigilance commission to whom the case was referred for advise have commented adversely upon the wrong procedure adopted in that case.
With a view to ensuring that such cases do not occur in future, Board desire that great care should be taken while framing charge sheet and wherever statement are included in the relied upon documents. The author of such statement should be listed as witnesses in Annexure IV of the charge sheets.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Sd/-"
3.3 Counsel for the petitioner has also taken us to the statement of one Smt. Sadhana Shrivastava, Head Clerk where in nothing was against the petition. The statement of one Sh. Shuresh Bhatiya, OSI (commercial branch/ET branch) were also taken into consideration which reads as under:
Q.3 I am enquiring into the charges of Sh. R.K. Parmarthak, Head Clerk, Store section W-5 section during that period he has been transferred in Aug.1996 to TRD Kota and from Aug. 1996 to January 1997 Sh. R.K. Parmarthak was drawing regular payment from Bill Unit No.408(4) as well as Bill Unit No.85 what do you want to say about that Ans. I am not aware about this thing. I have noth
