Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to procedural compliance, not reappraisal of evidence or merits of punishments.

ORDER

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

Heard Shri Kali Kant , learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil , learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:

8.1 This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 25.06.2007, impugned Appellate Order dated 28.02.2008 and impugned Revisional order dated 04/05.10.2010 passed by respondents Nos.06, 5, and 2 respectively.

ii) This Hon’ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the pay-scale of applicant with all consequential benefits.

(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)To award cost of the Original Application to the applicant.

3. The brief facts as apparent from the Original Application is that The applicant was appointed as a Ticket Collector on compassionate grounds on 20.09.1997. While performing his duties on 19/20.10.2006 in Train No. 5107 UP, the Vigilance Team conducted a check of the coach. It was alleged by the Vigilance Team that, at the time of checking, the applicant was not found in his allotted coach. During the checking, 21 passengers were found travelling in the Sleeper Coach on the basis of General Second Class tickets in a Mail/Express train, and an amount of Rs. 1,400/- was recovered from the unauthorized passengers. Apart from this, the applicant allegedly failed to declare his private cash amounting to Rs. 200/- before commencing his duty.

3.1 Accordingly, the applicant was served with a Memorandum of Charge-sheet under SF-5 for major punishment vide order dated 05.12.2006, wherein two charges were levelled against him. The applicant submitted a representation denying the charges. However, Shri N. P. Srivastava from the Vigilance Department was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry by order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 19.12.2006.

3.2 During the enquiry proceedings, the applicant submitted his defence statement and written brief. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 07.03.2007, wherein both the charges levelled against the applicant were held to be proved.

3.3 Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report and called upon the applicant to submit his reply within fifteen days. In response, the applicant submitted his reply on 13.04.2007; however, the same was not considered by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondent-6 imposed a major punishment upon the applicant vide order dated 25.06.2007, whereby the applicant was compulsorily retired from service.

3.4 Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a departmental appeal on 16.07.2007 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 28.02.2008, reduced the punishment of compulsory retirement to reduction in lower stage i.e. from Rs.4000-6000 to 3050-4590/- and fixing his pay @ Rs.3050/- for ten years with his having effect in his future increments.

3.5 Against the said order, the applicant filed a revision petition before respondent No. 2 on 05.02.2009. However, the Revisional Authority rejected the revision petition vide order dated 22.04.2009 on the ground of delay.

3.6 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 710/2010. This Trib