CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH OA No.343 of 2017 th Dated this the 04 day of November, 2025 CORAM :

Hon’ble Mr. Jayesh Bhairavia, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

Shri Tarunkumar, Son of Shri Punamchand, Age: 38 years, Working as CBC in the office of the respondents, Residing at 20, Kalakunj Society, Kapodra, Varacha Road, Surat – 395 006. …..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M.S.Trivedi)

VERSUS

1. The General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Oo DRM, Western Railway, BCT Division, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020

3. Chief Commercial Manager, O/o CCM, Western Railway Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020

4. The Station Superintendent, O/o.S.S., Western Railway, Surat Station, Surat – 395 006. …. Respondents (By Advocate : Ms.R.R.Patel)

O R D E R Per : Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

Being aggrieved by the Memo No.E/ C/161/308/2/3/1593 dated 22.03.2017, the applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, he has filed the present OA with the following relief:-

(“A) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow thispetition.

(B) That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/declare that the impugned action/decision, legality, validity and justification on the part of the respondents regarding exercise of power under Rule 9 of Railway Serv ants (D&A) Rules, 1968, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and nonest in the eyes of law.

(C ) That, the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned legality, validity and justification on the part of the respondens regarding exercise of power under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, issuance of memo No.E/C/161/308/2/3/1593 dated 22.3.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (D&A)

Rules, 1968.

(D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

2. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:-

2.1 The applicant is a permanent employee of respondents, working as CBC-Chief Booking Clerk in the scale of Rs.9300- 34800 + 4200GP in the office of the respondents. The applicant was working at Vapi Station since 18.03.2016. He was on duty from 25.11.2016 to 09.12.2016 at Surat Station and deposited Rs.18,84,100/- as booking earning out of which Rs.18,83,500/- were old demonetised notes.

2.2 It was stated that during the course of Vigilance Inspection, the applicant was found in the book office after his duty hours near counter No.3 and 4 and according to the respondents allegation, the applicant was found with Rs.1,00,000/- demonetised notes with the intention to change the same with the new notes from the Railway cash.

2.3 It was stated that the charge sheet vide Charge Memo No.E/C/161/308/2/3/1593 dated 22.03.2017 under Rule 9 Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 was issued to the applicant and in response to the charge Memorandum, the applicant had filed his reply on 13.07.2017 wherein the applicant denied the charges levelled against him. Further, the applicant submitted that in his reply, he mentioned that authority who had issued charge memo was neither appointing authority nor the competent authority. Admittedly, the entire proceeding of the Vigilance Branch dated 09.12.2016 was contrary to the basic provisions of Para 405 and 406 of the Vigilance Manual wherein the respondent had not communicated any definite decision for the search conducted in this regard. Therefore being aggrieved on the Charge Memorandum dated 12.03.2017 issued under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 the applicant has filed this Original Application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as under:-

3.1 Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Charge Memo No.E/C/161/308/2/3/1593 dated 22.03.2017 under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 is ex- facie, illegal, arbitrary and unjust, deserves inte