CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR Original Application No. 546/2024 Pronounced on : 09.12.2025 Reserved on : 18.11.2025 CORAM HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE Dr. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)

Mahesh Chand Purohit son of Late Shri Ram Chandra Purohit, aged about 41 years, Resident of Behind Pushkarna Stadium, Bikaner.

Applicant working at DRM office Bikaner as O.S. Pin-334001 …..Applicant By Advocate: Mr. Manoj Bohra Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North-Western Railway, Jaipur-302001.

2. Divisional Personnel Officer/Incharge, North-Western Railway, DRM Office, Bikaner-334001.

3. Divisional Railway Manager, North-Western Railway, Bikaner-

334001.

...... Respondents By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Tiwari ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

A/1) whereby disciplinary authority in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 14 (i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to ‘Rules 1968’) proposed on the applicant the penalty of removal from service for the reason that he was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the applicant has preferred this OA to quash and set aside the above Memorandum dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure-A/1).

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was initially appointed to the post of Junior Clerk on 01.07.2014 on compassionate ground. Thereafter, he was given promotion to the post of Senior Clerks and thereafter to the post of Office Superintendent. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the applicant wherein after trial, the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act cases) No.2, Bikaner passed an order dated 27.09.2024 whereby the applicant while convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, awarded sentence of 09 months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.7,25,000/- as penalty.

2.2 Against the above order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which suspended his sentence vide order dated 05.10.2024 (Annexure-A/4). After passing of the order of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the respondent authority has issued a Memorandum dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure-A/1) proposing removal from service.

2.3 Aggrieved against the Memorandum dated 15.10.2024, the applicant has preferred this OA on the ground that the impugned contrary to the settled proposition of law that the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. The Act neither constitutes gross misconduct nor does it amount to moral turpitude so as to warrant disciplinary proceedings. Offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not in strict- sense a conviction on a criminal charge. While referring the following judgments, the applicant prayed to quash and set aside the impugned memorandum:-

1. P. Mohanraj & Ors. vs. Shah Brothers, (2021) 6 SCC 258.

2. Mangi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors (SB Civil Writ Petition No.13764/2018) decided on 11.07.2023.

3. In reply filed to the OA, it is averred that the applicant obtained Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant in August, 2016. Against discharge of above liability, he issued two cheques, which were dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds. The impugned memorandum has been passed in terms of para 17 (a) of Master Circular issued in the matter of Rules, 1968, which provides for imposition of suitable penalty in the terms of Rule 14(1) of Rules. Contradicting the claim of the applicant, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Mangi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors (SB Civil Writ Petition No.13764/2018) decided on 11.07.2023, submitted that conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act neither constitutes gross misconduct nor does it amount to moral turpitude so as to warra