The violation of procedural instructions in the Railway Vigilance Manual by the investigating officer does not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1.These appeals by special leave filed by the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway and Others appellants herein, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 4th day of September, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 1489/2002, 26165 and 25111/2001. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short "the Tribunal"], Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. The Tribunal allowed the original applications of the respondents herein and quashed the orders of penalties imposed upon the respondents by the authority in departmental proceedings and further directed to reinstate the respondents in service.

2.These appeals are similar in nature and they involve identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

3.The facts, which are not in controversy of the case, are set out below:-

C. A. No. 5031 of 2002:

4.M. Anjaneyulu, the respondent in C.A. No. 5031/2003, at the relevant time, was working as Head Train Ticket Examiner (HTTE) on Train No. 8561. On 26.11.1998, departmental trap was laid by the Vigilance Officer of the Railway by arranging a decoy passenger on Train No.8561 going from Vijayawada to Kazipet stations. In the process of the raid, the respondent was found having demanded more money against the EFT amount. The report of the investigating officer was submitted to the Railway Authority, who issued charge sheet against the delinquent. The articles of charges are as under:-

(i)That the said Shri M. Anjaneyulu has demanded and collected Rs. 200/- against the EFT amount of Rs. 128/- towards the conversion and reservation charges for providing SL class accommodation on two II Express Ticket Nos. 29059 and 39060. Thus, he failed to maintained absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Railway servant and violated Rule No. 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of Rule No. 26 of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

(ii)While working as such in Train No. 8561 Express of 26.11.1988, he produced his railway cash as Rs. 803/- against his EFT earning of Rs. 767/- and thus he produced Rs. 36/- excess as an unaccounted cash. Thus, he violated Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Rule No. 26 of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

5.The Enquiry Officer conducted departmental Inquiry against the respondent-delinquent on the above said charges as per the provisions of the Railway Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and held that both the charges were proved against the delinquent. He was found defaulting himself in discharge of the official duties. The Disciplinary Authority, having agreed with the Inquiry Report, imposed upon the respondent-delinquent penalty of reversion by two grades from HTTE to Ticket Examiner (TE). The Revisional Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-delinquent vide order dated 25.02.2000, enhanced the penalty to removal from service of the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway. The Appellate Authority, on consideration of the material on record, confirmed the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent by the Revisional Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No. 1339/2000 before the Tribunal below.

C. A. No. 5029 of 2007:

6.M. Subramanyam Devers, respondent herein, was working as Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) in the year 1999. On 07.06.1999, when the respondent-delinquent was on duty on Train No. 752, Summer Special Express going from Secunderabad to Wadi, the Vigilance Officer laid departmental trap by deploying a decoy passenger. In the process of raid, the respondent was found defaulting himself in discharge of his official duties. As a result thereof, a charge sheet dated 24.8