Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to procedural fairness and natural justice; non-statutory vigilance manual violations do not vitiate inquiry without proven prejudice; no re-appreciation of evidence unless perverse.

ORDER

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

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“i) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set-aside all the three impugned orders dated 21.02.2013, passed by respondent no.5, impugned Appellate Order dated 06.05.2013 passed by respondent no.4 and impugned revisional order dated 20.10.2015 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure A-1 to Annexure-A-3 with Compilation No.1).

ii) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the original pay scale giving all the arrears of the amounts which has already been deducted by way of reducing the time scale of pay.

iii) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give all the consequential benefits as if said punishment has never been imposed.

iv) 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.

v) award costs to the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground as commercial clerk on 26.03.1998 and promoted to the cadre of enquiry cum reservation clerk in the year 2003. On 04.06.2012, the applicant was placed under suspension in contemplation of a Departmental Inquiry. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked and a memorandum of charge was served upon the applicant on 12.07.2012 on SF-5 meant for major punishment. An inquiry officer was appointed on 26.07.2012. The applicant submitted an application to the inquiry officer to summon the witnesses on 16.08.2012. On 11.12.2012, the applicant submitted his written defence brief under Rule 9(22) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968. On 31.12.2012, the inquiry officer submitted his report proving both the charges against the applicant against which the applicant submitted his representation to the disciplinary authority on 10.01.2013 seeking opportunity of personal hearing. On 21.02.2013, respondent no.5 imposed the punishment of reduction in pay scale to three stages for five years without cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal on 08.04.2013 which was turned down on 06.05.2013 and the revision preferred by the applicant was also rejected on 20.10.2015. Hence, the present O.A.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that while the applicant was performing his duty on 03.06.2012 at tatkal window No.920 for Selling Ticket at Varanasi City Railway Station, applicant was trapped by two Vigilance Inspectors namely Shri V.P. Tripathi and Shri Ramesh Pandey alongwith Shri V.K. Verma, Commercial Superintendent on duty and without letting him refund the balance amounts to the bonafide passengers the Vigilance seized the money for refunding and levelled two allegations i.e. applicant overcharged Rs. 1200/- and Rs. 500/- which was subsequently refunded to the bonafide passengers and that Rs. 1470/- was found excess and thus applicant violated Rule 3(1)(II, II, III) of conduct Rules, 1966. On account of contemplation of departmental inquiry, applicant was placed on suspension vide order dated 04.06.2