9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.4.1980 containing 6 charges that he traveled in the train in First Class on 24.11.1979 though he was not entitled to travel in that class; refused to arrange payment of certain amount to the employees against bills dated 12.11.1979; 16.11.1979 and 21.11.1979; while on duty on 24.11.1979 travelling in 1st Class compartment of the Train, played cards with RPF Rakshaks; that on 24.11.1979 the train in which he was traveling was detained by the agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of their pay allowance, he acted extremely irresponsibly and made no attempt to convince them about his difficulties; refused to receive "Control Message"/"Memo" from the superior officer and wanted commission of 1% for payment of pay allowance to the employees. 3. During the course of enquiry both parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted its report dated 22.4.1981 to the disciplinary authority holding all six charges proved against the said respondent-employee. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and considering the reply to the enquiry report submitted by the delinquent employee, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of 1% commission for making the payment of pay allowances stood proved. Punishment order passed by the appellate authority did not warrant any interference. More so there could be no justification for the Division Bench allowing the counter objections filed by the respondent employee, quashing the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the disciplinary authority to pass an order of minor punishment on charge nos. 4 & 5. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. On the contrary, Shri Bhargava V. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee submitted that the High Court after appreciating the entire evidence reached the conclusion that there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and there was no evidence on the basis of which any of the charges leveled against him could be held to have been proved. The High Court rightly quashed the order of punishment passed by the statutory authorities. Division Bench of the High Court set aside the direction to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of minor punishment, as a period of twenty years had elapsed and delinquent had suffered from mental agony a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f train arose from your alleged malafide intention of receiving commission on the arrears payment." 10. Enquiry Officer found all the six charges proved against the delinquent. The disciplinary authority agreed with those findings and imposed the punishment of removal from service which was modified by the appellate authority imposing the punishment of reversion to lower rank.. The learned Single Judge dealt with all the issues elaborately. The judgment runs to 140 pages. 11. In order to appreciate the facts in correct perspective, it may be necessary to make reference to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the grounds on which the opinion had been formed. So far as Issue No.1 is concerned, after appreciating the evidence, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent had been asked by the higher authorities to travel by 47 DN. known as Viramgam passenger for disbursing the cash as the regular disbursing cashier was ill. Thus, the respondent employee had traveled in first class compartment. However, the said charge could not have been held proved unless a finding of fact was recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the employee could not make him liable to face disciplinary proceeding in such circumstances. Therefore, the charge No.2 was not found to be proved. 13. The charge No.3 has been dealt with elaborately by the learned Single Judge and came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that respondent was playing cards with RPF Raksaks while making disbursement of the amount was totally baseless as the evidence at the most could be that in the course of journey towards his destination the respondent to while-away time played cards with RPF Raksaks. That could not be a conduct of unbecoming of a railway employee on duty as Rule 3(i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966 provided that every railway employee shall (i) maintain absolute integrity ; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway or Government servant. Thus, the conclusion was that there was no evidence to support the charge against him as the respondent did nothing which may fell within the mischief of either of the above clauses of Rule 3 of the Rules 1966. 14. The charge no.4 had been that the respondent-employee had shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge did not warrant any interference being based on evidence available on record. As a long time of about two decades had elapsed and the respondent employee was not granted any benefit of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge and it was a case of no evidence except on charge nos.4 & 5 and the said employee had already suffered a lot, the matter should come to an end. The court issued the following directions. "it would be just and reasonable to direct the appellants authorities to pay 50% of the back wages and all the consequential benefits including the retiral benefits without further imposing any minor penalty as directed by the learned Single Judge." 19. We have considered the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below in the light of the evidence on record. Admittedly, all the charges except Charge No. 2 are in respect of various incidents occurred on the same date i.e. on 24.11.1979. Charge No. 2 related to the incidents dated 12.11.1979, 16.11.1979 and 21.11.1979 which had been in close proximity of subsequent incidents occurred on 24.11.1979. The Enquiry Officer while dealing with Charge No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. Secreatry, Sahakari Noukarar Sangha & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 517; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatty, AIR 2001 SC 930; Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330; Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730; and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences. 26. In Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, this Court held that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on a vague charge as the same does not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective defence because he may not be aware as what is the allegation against him and what kind of defence he can put in rebuttal thereof. This Court observed as under : "The grounds on which it is proposed to take action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. 30. In fact, initiation of the enquiry against the respondent appears to be the outcome of anguish of superior officers as there had been agitation by the Railway staff demanding the payment of pay and allowances and they detained the train illegally and there has been too much hue and cry for several hours on the Railway Station. The Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration the nonexisting material and failed to consider the relevant material and finding of all facts recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 31. There could be no case of substantial misdemeanour against the respondent on either of the aforesaid charges except Charge No. 6 on which major penalty could be imposed. Charge No. 6 is totally vague and no enquiry could be conducted against the respondent on such a charge. It was basically a case of no evidence on any charge except Charge Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
