Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.1818/2013
New Delhi, this the 19th day of December, 2018
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. K. N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Shri Ravinder Kumar Madan
S/o Shri Bhim Sain Madan
Head Enquiry & Reservation Clerk
Railway Station
Panipat.
…. Applicant.
(By Advocate : Mrs. Meenu Mainee)
Vs.
Union of India through
1. General Manager
Northern Railway
Headquarters Office
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
3. Divisional Traffic Manager
Northern Railway
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
…. Respondents.
(By Advocate : Shri Sat Pal Singh)
: O R D E R (ORAL) :
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:
The applicant was working as Booking Clerk in the
Northern Railway. A vigilance check was conducted by the
Vigilance Department on 03.01.2005 on the counter being
2
operated by the applicant, and it was noticed that there was
shortage of Rs. 5,369/- in the Cash balance. A charge memo
was issued on 14.06.2005. On finding that the explanation
offered by the applicant was not satisfactory, the Inquiry
Officer was appointed, who, in turn, submitted the report
holding that the charges against the applicant are proved.
Taking into consideration, the report of the IO and the
comments of the applicant on the same, the Disciplinary
Authority passed an order dated 30.05.2006 imposing on
applicant the penalty of reduction in pay by three steps, in
same time scale for three years with cumulative effect.
2. The applicant availed the remedy of appeal. Even while
the appeal was pending, the Reviewing Authority, i.e., the
Additional Divisional Railway Manager issued a Show Cause
notice dated 05.09.2006 requiring the applicant to explain
as
to
why
the
punishment
be
not enhanced.
On
consideration of the explanation submitted by the applicant,
the Reviewing Authority enhanced the punishment of
reduction in pay to the lowest step in same time scale for a
period of five years with cumulative effect, through order
dated 29.09.2006. The further revision was rejected on
10.07.2007.
3. The applicant filed OA No.1926/2007, feeling aggrieved
by the order of punishment, as enhanced by the Reviewing
3
Authority. The OA was partly allowed on 09.04.2008 setting
aside the impugned order of punishment, and the matter
was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for passing
a speaking order. In compliance with the same, the
Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 10.10.2008
imposing the same punishment that was set aside in the
OA. The appeal preferred by the Applicant was rejected on
27.10.2018. Hence, this OA.
4. The applicant contends that the very appointment of
the Inquiry Officer was vitiated on account of the fact that
an officer from the Vigilance Department was appointed. It
is stated that the Vigilance Department did not ensue the
presence of two independent witnesses at the time of
inspection. It is also stated that the various orders passed
by the authorities are not speaking in nature. Finally, it is
urged that the IO failed to examine the applicant herein as
required under Rule 9 (21) of the Railway Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, which is similar to Rule 14 (18)
of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the
OA. It is stated that the charges alleged against the
applicant are very serious in nature and once they were held
proved, the punishment commensurate with the gravity was
imposed. It is also stated that the prescribed procedure was
4
followed through out and at no stage, the applicant raised
objections, referable to any provisions of law.
6. We heard Mrs. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Sat Pal Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents in detail.
7. The charges framed against the applicant read as
under:-
“Annexure-I
Article of cha
