Revised punishment of reduction to lower pay scale for specified period with cumulative effect upheld as compliant with rules; no re-appreciation of enquiry evidence; corruption penalties valid even for small sums.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):

Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K.

Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :

“(i) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 31.7.2019 (Annexure-A-1 passed by Respondent No.2.

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the grade, scale of pay, post/service of the applicant as was on 26.07.2007 and accordingly to pay the differences of pay as would have been paid any actual has been paid.

(iii) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such other and/or further order as deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

iv) Award costs to the Applicant.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Commercial Clerk through Railway Service Commission, Gorakhpur in the pay scale of Rs.975-1540/-. on the basis of sincerity the applicant was promoted as senior commercial clerk in the year of 1991 and thereafter promoted as Head Commercial Clerk in the year of 1993. While the applicant was performing his duty as commercial/parcel clerk on 23.03.2006, he was trapped by vigilance in uttar disregard of the Rule 704 and 705 of Railway Vigilance Manual and thus a memorandum of charge sheet dated 05.07.2006 of S.F.5, meant for major punishment was issued by Divisional Commissioner, Manager. The applicant submitted his defence statement denying all the charges levelled against him on 14.07.2006. On 22.11.2006, applicant submitted his defence brief under Rule 9(19) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 to the enquiry officer pointing out this fact that he was deliberately been trapped by the vigilance through decoy. The applicant again submitted his Defence Brief on 26.12.2006 under Rule 9(22) of the R.S. (D&A) Rules, 1968 to the enquiry officer. On 23.02.2007, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant along with copy of Inquiry Report dated 09.02.2007 and asked him to submit his representation in respect of defence. On 09/23.02.2007, the applicant submitted his detailed representation against the inquiry report denying both the allegations made against him and specifically pointed out that inquiry conducted by vigilance official being an Inquiry Officer, is wholly illegal and he was totally biased and bound to prove the charges ignoring Rule 704 and 705 of Railway Vigilance Manual. On 27.07.2007, the respondent no.6 imposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement without giving reasoned and speaking order. Against the compulsory retirement, the applicant preferred an appeal to the respondent no.5 on 03.09.2007. The appellate authority i.e. respondent no.5 on the basis of findings of Inquiry Officer turned down the appeal of the applicant on 20.12.2007. Being aggrieved with the decision of Appellate Authority, the applicant preferred a Revision Petition on 8.01.2008 before respondent no.2 highlighting all the illegalities and requested to absolve him from malicious, vigorous, and unwarranted penalty of compulsory retirement. The Revisional Authority found the discrepancy in the Inquiry Report and as such vide order dated 21/23.10.2008 reduced the punishment of compulsory retirement into reduction to a lower time scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000/- in minimum pay of Rs.4000/- for entire-service career which is not permissible under the rules. Aggrieved