The respondent accordingly filed an appeal.
The appellants, being aggrieved, filed three separate writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad challenging the validity and companyrectness of the order of the Tribunal.
1489/2002, 26165 and 25111/2001.
29059 and 39060.
In a decoy departmental trap laid by the Vigilance Officer on 13/14.01.1998, the respondent was found lacking in discharge of his official duties.
200/ against the EFT amount of Rs.
26 of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
5033 of 2003 In the year 1998, G. Ratnam, respondent herein, was working as HTTE.
A charge memo dated 27.6.1998 companytaining the following two heads of charges was issued to the respondent.
Thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Railway servant and violated Rule No.
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.
The Appellate Authority, on companysideration of the material on record, companyfirmed the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent by the Revisional Authority.
The Disciplinary Authority, having gone through the inquiry report vide order dated 26.05.1999, imposed a penalty of reduction to lower grade post of TTE upon the respondent with effect from 10.6.1999 for a period of one year with loss of seniority.
The facts, which are number in companytroversy of the case, are set out below A. No.
Non companypliance of the said provisions has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings and as a result thereof, the order of the authorities imposing penalty upon the respondents are held to be invalid and illegal.
Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred O.A. No.
26 of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
767/ and thus he produced Rs.
3 1 ii and iii of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
The respondent preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority, who on 14.08.2000 dismissed the said revision petition.
G. Ratnam, HTTE SL BZA while working as such by 7225 Express from BZAGTL on 13/14.01.1998 has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and has companymitted the following irregularity in that.
The respondent submitted his representation on 29.11.2001.
A. No.
While working as such in Train No.
178/ and got remitted to the Railway vide EFT No.
The Division Bench of the High Court agreed with the order of the Tribunal and came to the companyclusion that the investigating agency had companyducted the departmental traps against the respondents in violation of the mandatory provisions as companytained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996.
The Appellate Authority companyfirmed the penalty of companypulsory retirement imposed by the Revising Authority upon the respondent.
803/ against his EFT earning of Rs.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No.
That the said Sri.
Thus, Sri Subramanyam Devers, TTE SC failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant and thus, violated Rule No.
It appears that numberappeal has been preferred by the respondent against the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
3 1 i ii iii of Rule No.
36/ excess as an unaccounted cash.
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway.
In a departmental inquiry companyducted under the Railway Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, the Inquiry officer found the above said charges proved against the respondent.
1773/2000 before the Tribunal.
128/ towards the companyversion and reservation charges for providing SL class accommodation on two II Express Ticket Nos.
5029 OF 2003 The Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Ors.
On 07.06.1999, when the respondent delinquent was on duty on Train No.
5033 OF 2003 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A. No.
5029 of 2007 M. Subramanyam Devers, respondent herein, was working as Travelling Ticket Examiner TTE in the year 1999.
1339/2000 before the Tribunal below.
Appellants Versus Subramanyam Devers Respondent A N D CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed another O.A. No.
He has companylected Rs.20/ excess from Sri N. Neelambaram for providing sleeper class reserved accommodation ex.
34623 and 34622.
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.
5031 OF 2003 Union of India Ors.
The articles of charges are as under That the said Shri M. Anjaneyulu has demanded and companylected Rs.
3 1 i ii iii of Rule No.
89/ towards the companyversion and reservation charges for providing SL class accommodation on two II Express Ticket Nos.
The Enquiry Officer companyducted 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.
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No.
The Appellate Authority, on companysideration of the appeal filed by the respondent vide order dated 24.02.2000, companyfirmed the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
752, Summer Special Express going from Secunderabad to Wadi, the Vigilance Officer laid departmental trap by deploying a decoy passenger.
BZA to BAY as detailed in the statement of imputations and thus companylected unauthorized charges hence liable vide para 2430 a of IRCM Volume II.
He was found defaulting himself in discharge of the official duties.
Thus Sri G. Ratnam, HTTE SL BZA has violated Rule 3 1 i ii of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
While working as such in Train No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
3 companysidered the representation of the respondent, modified and substituted the penalty to that of companypulsory retirement of the respondent from service with effect from 20.01.2000.
5031 of 2002 M. Anjaneyulu, the respondent in C.A. No.
Thus, he violated Rule 3 1 ii and iii of Rule No.
The Disciplinary Authority had accepted the Inquiry Report and imposed punishment of removal from service upon the respondent with immediate effect.
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.
26 of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
752, Summer Special on 7.6.1999 ex.
200/ against the EFT accountal of Rs.
On 05.01.2000, appellant No.
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 .
As a result thereof, a charge sheet dated 24.8.1999 was issued against the respondent, which reads as under That the said Sri M. Subramanyam Devers has demanded and companylected Rs.
1349/2000 before the Tribunal.
SC to WD has produced his railway cash as Rs.
8561 Express of 26.11.1988, he produced his railway cash as Rs.
492236 of 7.6.99 is liable as per para 2429 of IRCM Vol.
While working as such by 7225 Express from BZA GTL on 13/14.01.1998 has failed to maintain absolute integrity, show devotion to duty and has companymitted the serious irregularity in that he has produced Rs.
However, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division appellant No.
89/ and again companylected Rs.
305379 of 13.1.1998 and thus liable vide para 2429 e of IRCM Volume II.
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.
100/ against the EFT amount of Rs.
20/ excess in the Railway cash which was remitted to Railways vide EFT No.
In the process of raid, the respondent was found defaulting himself in discharge of his official duties.
Thus Sri G. Ratnam, HTTE SL BZA has violated Rule 3 1 i ii of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
5031/2003, at the relevant time, was working as Head Train Ticket Examiner HTTE on Train No.
100/ against the EFT amount of Rs.
The Railway Authority companyducted departmental inquiry against the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 and during the said inquiry, the above said charges were proved against the respondent.
Appellants Versus Anjaneyulu Respondent Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. These appeals by special leave filed by the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway and Others appellants herein, are directed against the companymon 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.
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.
194/2000 before the Tribunal which came to be disposed of on 14.2.2000 with a direction to the respondent to prefer an appeal before the Chief Commercial Manager Appellate Authority.
The Tribunal below, by a companymon order, allowed the applications of the respondents on a technical ground holding that the departmental traps were number laid by the Vigilance Officers of the Railways in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 1996 and as a result of the defective investigations, orders of imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the Disciplinary Authority and the companysequential orders of the Revisional Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are quashed.
3 herein under Rule 25 of the Railway Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 took suo motu revision and directed the respondent to show cause why the penalty be number enhanced to removal from service.
