An appellate authority is mandatorily required to issue a show cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to an employee before enhancing a penalty, failure to which violates the principles of natural justice and renders the enhanced punishment invalid.

JUDGMENT :

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The present writ petition assails the impugned order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,[“CAT” / “Tribunal” hereinafter] in Original Application, [“O.A” hereinafter] No. 2311/2012, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the O.A preferred by the petitioner’s husband, late Shri Anil Kumar, [“the deceased/petitioner’s husband” hereinafter].

2. That the deceased had been appointed in Group ‘D’ post against Sports Quota in the Railways on 25.01.1990 and had been posted in the Parcel Office, New Delhi Railway Station. The appointing authority had been the Divisional Railway Manager.

3. Subsequently, the deceased was promoted to the post of Booking Clerk through departmental process. During his duty, while working as Booking Clerk at Shahdara Railway Station, the deceased was subjected to a vigilance check conducted by the Railway Vigilance Team on 29.10.2003.

4. During the said vigilance check, it was found that the deceased allegedly demanded Rs. 58/- in excess of fare for issuing two tickets to the decoy passengers. In pursuance of which, excess government cash of Rs.160/- was allegedly also found.

5. Accordingly, the deceased was transferred from Delhi division to Murdabad division due to the above incident, a penalty chargesheet dated 20.07.2004 was also issued to deceased. The same read as-

“Shri Anil Kumar, CC/DSA while posted in Booking Office/ Delhi Shahadara and manning Counter No.04 as such on 29.10.2003 was detected to have committed serious irregularities in as much as that:-

i) He demanded and accepted Rs.58/- over and above the due fare on two IInd M/E tickets for Raxaul from the decoy passenger in a Departmental Test Check.

ii) He produced Rs.160/- excess in his Govt. cash with an in convincing reasons.”

By the above act of omission and commission Shri Anil Kumar, CC/N.Rly., Delhi Shahadara failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant and thereby contravened the provision of Rule No.-3.1 (i), (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, - 1966.

Sd/-

Divl. Traffic Manager

N.Rly., New Delhi

6. The charges were denied by the deceased and as a result disciplinary proceedings were conducted and an Inquiry Officer, [“I.O” hereinafter] from the Vigilance Department was appointed to conduct the departmental inquiry.

7. During the inquiry proceedings, five prosecution witness had been examined including two Vigilance Inspectors, two RPF constables and one Booking Clerk from Shahdara. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the I.O submitted his inquiry report dated 29.10.2007 holding the charges against the deceased to be proved.

8. That pursuant to the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 14.01.2008 had imposed the penalty of reduction to the lowest grade/Class IV post carrying pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 for a period of twelve years, with restoration thereafter to the higher-grade carrying scale of Rs.3200-4900 along with postponement of future increments.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order, the deceased preferred an appeal dated 20.02.2008 before th