The court emphasized the compliance with procedural rules, the permissibility of considering past service record for imposing penalty, and the discretion of the Appellate Authority in granting compassionate provisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the fifth respondent''s order made in O.A.No.310/00855 of 2013 dated 18.09.2019, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into Railway Service with all consequential benefits both service and monetary.)

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

1. This writ petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the application filed in O.A.No.310/00855/2013 dated 18.09.2019.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Ticket Collector on 17.10.1979. While working as Chief Ticketing Inspector at Arakkonam Junction of Southern Railway''s, he was issued with a major penalty charge memo bearing No.M/Con/C/1536 dated 03.02.2011, the contents of the charge memo are here under:-

Statement of Articles of Charges Framed Against Shri A. Arumugam, CT/AJJ (THEN CTI/SL/ED).

Sri A. Arumugam, CTI/AJJ (then CTI/SL/ED), PF.No.04315420 while working by Train No.6327 on 10/11.1.10 and manning A-1, B-1 & B2 Coaches had failed to maintain absolute integrity, show devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Railway Servant in that he had committed the following irregularities.

(a).He had demanded and collected Rs.500/- from Sri.C.Vijay, Technician, Gr.III/C&W/TPJ, allotted berth No.48 of B-1 Coach and issued EFT No.014666 for Rs.456/- but not returned the balance amount of Rs.44/- to him. Thus, he retained the balance for his personal gains.

(b). He had also demanded Rs.500/- from Sri.R.Suresh, Technician, Gr.III/C&W/TPJ holding II M/E ticket No.479053804 ex MAS-ED and permitted him to occupy berth No.47 of B-1 Coach.

(c). He had not collected the railway dues of Rs.390/- from Sri R. Suresh, Technician, Gr.III/C&W/TPJ holding II M/E ticket No.479053084 ex MAS-ED and permitted him to occupy berth No.47 of B-1 Coach.

(d). He had also permitted four passengers holding II M/E ticket No.479053205 ex MAS-ED to occupy berth Nos.5,7,13 & berth No.3 in A-1 Coach after SA without collecting railway dues of Rs.1850/- from them.

(e). He had inflated his personal cash as Rs.618/- against actual amount of Rs.200/- and thus he had excess cash of Rs.418/-.

(f). He had not made entries in the Train working chart for the allotments made by him.

3. Pursuant to this charge memo one K.Moorthy, Senior Enquiry Officer/Southern Railway was appointed as “Inquiry Officer”. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report stating that Charge (b) was “partly proved” and other charges were “proved”. The second respondent/The Additional Divisional Railway Manager/II imposed a penalty of “Removal from Railway Service”. Being aggrieved of the penalty, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 13.04.2012 under Rule 18 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 before the 3rd respondent. The appeal was turned down. A further revision was preferred under Rule 25 of the aforesaid Rules which was also ended in dismissal.

4. Challenging these orders, the writ petitioner filed O.A.No.855 of 2013. The OA was also dismissed. Aggrieved by which he has filed the present writ petition.

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that when there is disagreement between the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer on the second Charge (b), he ought to have entered into given reasons for such disagreement and should have communicated the same to the writ petitioner along with the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer. He alleged the violations of the principles of Natural Justice and had not been taken note by any of the parties. He further contended that as per Rule 9 (21) of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules 1968, the Inquiry Officer ought to have called upon him explaining the circumstances and that having not been