In disciplinary proceedings based on circumstantial evidence, chain must be complete without conjectures; non-production of seals/labels and unattended wagon post-sealing vitiates findings despite procedural substantial compliance.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri PK Mishra, holding brief of Shri S K Om, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bashist Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned orders dated 12.07.2011, 20.10.2011 and 22.05.2012 (Annexure -1, A-2 and A-3) with all consequential benefits as if the applicant was never punished in pursuance to charge of memorandum dated 21.03.2007.

(ii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) The cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the applicant from service, order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority reinstating the applicant with punishment of reduction of 5 stages for 5 years with cumulative effect with loss of promotion and increment and treating the intervening period as dies-non and order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority modifying the order of the Appellate Order to the reduction for 3 stages for 3 years with cumulative effect. The applicant has contended that he has been falsely implicated and punished for the offence he never committed and that simply he has been made a scapegoat by the respondents for someone else’s misconduct. Through this OA, the applicant has prayed for the quashing of the aforesaid orders alleging that they have been passed by the respondents without any application of mind and also seeks a direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant as if the applicant was never punished in pursuance of the charge of memorandum dated 21.03.2007.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that orders under challenge passed by the respondents are illegal. Respondents have not taken into consideration the plea stated by the applicant in the reply to the inquiry report, appeal as well as revision petition. The applicant after loading the pigs (50 pigs) pasted the label card on each of the door closing the same with tethers. It is also argued that mandatory provision provided under Para 704 as well as 705 of the Vigilance Manual have not been followed. Independent witnesses before search have not been ensured. Thus, allegations leveled against the applicant are false and are not supported by independent evidence. It is further argued that relevant material witnesses have not been examined in the matter despite repeated requests made by the applicant. It is also argued that since label cards fixed / pasted on each door have not been supplied to the applicant, nor was any specific statement made during inquiry in this respect, thus, there is every chance that after the sealing and pasting of the label cards on each door, some other persons have loaded the pigs exceeding the number of 50 for which the applicant cannot be punished. Disciplinary Authority has initially passed the order of removal from service against the applicant. The Appellate Authority modified the punishment reinstating the applicant with do