By the Court.—By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 30.11.2012 passed in Original Application No. 851 of 2006.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent alleging that while he was on sick leave on 21.8.2002, he was found in the booking office alongwith a Coolie named Bandhu for the purpose of selling fake tickets 31 in number from Lar Road to Mumbai. Thus, by this act, the respondent had violated the provisions of Rule 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servant Conduct (Rules) 1966. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and on the basis of the enquiry report, the Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 1.6.2004 removing the respondent from service. The respondent preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi. Further revision was preferred which was also rejected by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi by order dated 8.6.2005. The respondent is stated to have preferred a Special Appeal before the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur under Rule 24 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

3. Aggrieved by the various orders the respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad being O.A. No. 851 of 2006. The O.A. was filed, inter alia, on the ground that there was no evidence that the respondent was found selling the alleged 31 fake tickets on 21.8.2002. It was further stated that the alleged 31 fake tickets were brought by Sri Bandhu, a Coolie and thrown through the window between the gap of the ‘Tizori’ and the counter in the dark. The case of the respondent also was that there was no allegation against him that the alleged fake tickets were recovered from his possession by the Vigilance Team which had conducted the raid nor was there any allegation that the tickets had been sold by the respondent to any passenger or to any decoy passenger set up by the Vigilance Team.

4. The contention of the respondent was that on the date of the incident on 21.8.2002 he was on sick leave and he was going to Mau Junction to take medicines and at the station he was falsely implicated on the charge of selling fake tickets. It is contended that the allegation against the respondent is based on suspicion and there is no material evidence to prove the charge of selling of fake tickets.

5. The other contention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the raid had been conducted by the Vigilance Team whereas the enquiry officer appointed to conduct the enquiry against the respondent was the Chief Vigilance Inspector (Vigilance), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur who conducted the enquiry and therefore, the entire enquiry was vitiated in view of the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in the case in Union of India and others v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, (2009) 2 SCC 541.

6. The further contention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that at the time of issue of charge-sheet he was working in the promotional post of Head Booking Clerk in the Grade of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- and therefore his disciplinary authority was the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager but the order of removal has been passed by the Divisional Commercial Manager and the same was in violation of the Rule 2 (1) (A) (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India as the order of the removal had been passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

7. Before the Tribunal the case was contested by the petitioner-Railway Administration and a counter reply was filed. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the documents on record the Tribunal