By reason of the impugned judgment dated 8th March, 2006 the said writ petition was allowed by the High Court opining that the Central Administrative Tribunal in its original order having entered into the realm of evidence and re appreciated the same, exceeded its jurisdiction.
Mr. A.K. Sanghi, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that The High Courted companymitted a serious error in so far as it failed to take into companysideration that the Railways Authorities were required to follow paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual scrupulously.
Appellant was found guilty of the said charges in the said departmental proceeding.
Appellant herein was working as Booking Supervisor with the Central Railways.
A penalty of reduction to the lowest scale of pay fixing his pay at the lowest level at Rs.3,200/ for a period of five years was imposed.
An appeal and companysequently a revision preferred by him were dismissed by the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional Authority by orders dated 31st May, 2000 and 7th November, 2000 respectively.
He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.
Five on issue of one M E Ticket No.
283 of 2002.
283 of 2002.
Appellant having number examined any defence witness, he should have been examined in terms of Rule 9 21 of the Rules, which being mandatory in nature, number compliance thereof would vitiate the entire proceeding.
8148090 Ex.
It was registered as O.A. No.
On or about 17th April, 1998 a decoy check was laid in the companyrse whereof he was found to have overcharged a sum of Rs.5/ on the ticket issued to a decoy passenger.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of the Tribunal, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Article III He declared his private cash in companyputer that the monetary ceiling for the satisfactory staff, without being certified by the supervisor in the private cash register.
5/ Rs.
It was furthermore companytended that provisions of Rule 9 21 of the Railway Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules have number been companyplied with.
1729 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
Article II He was found having Rs.
It was pointed out that the appellant was number examined by the Enquiry Officer in terms of the provisions of Rule 9 21 of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules the Rules , which is mandatory in nature.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 6th January, 2003, the same was allowed opining that in terms of paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual, the trap ought to have been laid in presence of the independent witness or Gazetted Officer and as only one Head Constable of the RPF and number two Gazetted Officers had been assigned to witness the trap and furthermore the Head Constable was at a distance of more than 30 meters, he companyld number have heard the companyversations by and between the appellant and the decoy passenger and thus the charges companyld number be said to have been proved.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
CSTM to Bhubaneshwar.
199/ Rs.
In the said departmental proceeding, appellant inter alia raised a companytention as regard to number companypliance of paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual the Manual in the manner in which the purported trap was laid.
A departmental proceeding was initiated wherein the following imputations of charges were drawn Article I He overcharged the decoy passenger by Rs.
8183 of 2007 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
One hundred ninety nine short in his railway cash.
It was moreover found that the decoy passenger neither companynted the money at the window number protested that the balance amount was less by Rs.5/ , and in fact admitted to have left the window and came back half an hour later with the Vigilance Inspector which pointed out loopholes in the trap.
It was also held that there was numberevidence as regards the charge of returning Rs.5/ less to the companyplainant.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.
3748 of 2003 whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein from the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in O.A. No.
He was transferred to Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus in December, 1997.
