Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4564
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
J. Jason Joseph
Versus
The Union of India rep. by the Member (Traffic), Railway Board Ministry of Railways & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.37607 OF 2007
Decided On : 22-10-2010
For the Petitioner:L. Chandrakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for V.G. Suresh Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Departmental Proceedings - Railway Vigilance Manual - [VIOLATION OF RAILWAY VIGILANCE MANUAL] - [Paragraph 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual] - [Railways Act, 1989, Section 25(1)(v)(i)] - The court found that the departmental trap organized by the vigilance wing was not bona fide, as it was pre-planned and did not comply with the Railway Vigilance Manual. The court also held that the revisional authority's decision to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority was wrong, and the Central Administrative Tribunal was equally wrong in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and seniority, and was awarded 25% of the backwages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a railway employee, was subjected to departmental proceedings based on a trap organized by the vigilance wing. The vigilance wing initiated revisional proceedings, resulting in the petitioner's dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the decision, alleging violation of natural justice and non-compliance with the Railway Vigilance Manual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental trap organized by the vigilance wing was not bona fide, as it was pre-planned and did not comply with the Railway Vigilance Manual. The court also held that the revisional authority's decision to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority was wrong, and the Central Administrative Tribunal was equally wrong in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and seniority, and was awarded 25% of the backwages.
Issues: Violation of Railway Vigilance Manual, Non-compliance with natural justice, Bona fide exercise of revisional jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: The departmental trap organized by the vigilance wing was not bona fide, as it was pre-planned and did not comply with the Railway Vigilance Manual. The revisional authority's decision to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority was wrong, and the Central Administrative Tribunal was equally wrong in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the decision to dismiss the petitioner from service, and directed the respondents to pay 25% of the backwages to the petitioner. The respondents were also directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and seniority.
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
The petitioner challenges the order dated 30 May, 2007 in O.A.No.559 of 2006 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby and whereunder the original application challenging the punishment of removal from service was confirmed.
THE FACTS:
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Ticket Collector in Indian Railways in the year 1979. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Senior Ticket Collector/Travelling Ticket Examiner and Travelling Ticket Inspector.
3. While the petitioner was working as Travelling Ticket Inspector in Chennai, he was issued with a major penalty charge memo dated 19 February, 1997 by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai for the alleged misconduct committed by him. In the said charge memo, it was stated that while working as Train Ticket Inspector in Train No.6007 Mail, on 12 October, 1996, his records were checked by the vigilance wing and it was found that he collected substantial amount from customers, who were travelling in First Class with Sleeper Class ticket without accounting for the conversion charges. Altogether there were seven charges. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation denying the charges. The disciplinary authority opined that the explanation was not convincing and accordingly an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges.
The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report, holding the charges as proved. Based on the report of the inquiry officer, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manger of Southern Railways at Chennai imposed the penalty of removal from service as per proceedings dated 15 September, 1999.
4. The order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging violation of the principles of natural justice. The Central Administrative Tribunal as per order dated 18 September, 2001 set aside the penalty of removal from service and directed the railway administration to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of examination of witnesses.
5. Subsequently, another inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer submitted his detailed report once again holding the charges as proved. Accordingly, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager passed an order of dismissal from railway service, as per proceedings dated 26 September, 2002.
6. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Additional Divisional Railway Manager. The appellate authority opined that, out of seven charges, charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not proved. The appeal was accordingly allowed by modifying the punishment. Instead of removal, the petitioner was placed in the lower post for a period of three years with recurring effect.
7. The order passed by the appellate authority on 20 February, 2003 was implemented by posting the petitioner as Senior Ticket Inspector at Gummidipoondi Railway Station. The petitioner joined the said station on 26 February, 2003.
8. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Tiruchirappalli Division.
9. While the matters stood thus, the second respondent by invoking revisional jurisdiction issued a notice dated 4 March, 2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be given the punishment of dismissal from railway service. The petitioner on receipt of the said communication submitted his detailed reply on 15 April, 2004.
10. The General Manger, Southern Railway as per his proceedings dated 8 September, 2005 set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and imposed the maximum punishment of dismissal from railway service.
11. The order passed by the second respondent was challenged by the petitioner before the Railway Board. The appeal was rejected as per order dated 30 June, 2006. Feeling aggrieved by the proceedings, the petitioner filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.559 of 2006.
12. The Central Administrative Tribunal was of the view that paragraph 705 o
