TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Cash in the scale of ₹ 260-400 w.e.f. 8.2.1971 vide official letter dated 8.2.1971. He was thereafter posted as Cashier in the year 1977 in the pay-scale of ₹ 330-480. He was served a charge sheet dated 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of facts recorded by the enquiry officer, approved by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It was a case of gross indiscipline and of corruption. Six charges against the said employee including the demand 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 statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DOS leading to greater detention of the train. 5. In the back ground of detention of train brought out under charge No.4 Sr. DAO/BRC was contacted by control and he wanted you to speak to him in control. When you were told about this and were handed over control message/ memo to this effect you refused to accept the said memo thereby sowing a great sense of irresponsibility, lack of duty and a willful disobedience of orders of your superiors. 6. It is also alleged by the staff of Chandodia station that you refused to make payment to the concerned staff on 24.11.1979 because you wanted a commission of 1% on the arrears which the staff were unwilling to pay. Your refusal to make the payment on the said day and the consequent agitations and detention of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at by the inquiry officer is not supported by evidence on record and is totally perverse. Consequently, it must be held that charge No.1 is not legally proved against the petitioner. 12. So far as the Charge No. 2 is concerned, learned Single Judge referred to the departmental circulars particularly office circular No.23 of 1969 which provided that the disbursement of amount of more than ₹ 500/- could not be made without securing the presence of a Gazetted Officer to witness the payment. During the transaction, the respondent employee made his stand clear that as no Gazetted Officer was available at Chandlodia, the disbursement was not permissible and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that mere error of judgment or lack of tact on 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 basele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer that they have heard that the said respondent was asking but none of them was able to point out who was that person who had been asked to pay 1% commission. One of such witnesses deposed that some unknown person had told him. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the knowledge of the witnesses in this regard was based on hearsay statement of some unknown persons whom they did not know . This was certainly not legal evidence to sustain such a serious charge of corruption against an employee. 17. Thus, the writ petition was disposed of directing the disciplinary authority to impose a minor penalty on the charges of not receiving the control message/memo. 18. The Division Bench after considering the facts involved herein, came to the conclusion 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 shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent to pay 1% commission for payment of pay allowances. It is an admitted position that if a charge of corruption is proved, no punishment other that dismissal can be awarded. 24. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1249, this Court held as under: In a case of such nature indeed, in cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. 25. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary Anr., (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 Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. 29. In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
