- (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner, presently working on the post of Pharmacist at Railway Health Unit, North Western Railway, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, seeks to question the order dated 15.07.2011 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('CAT') has dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- the Original Application ('OA') No.126/2009 as filed by him assailing the orders passed in the departmental inquiry.
(2.) BRIEFLY put, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner, while working on the post of Pharmacist at the North Western Railway Health Unit, Degana, was issued a Special Duty Pass bearing No.337830 dated 18.06.2004 for the purpose of traveling of his wife Smt. Rajbala with one attendant from Degana to Jodhpur and back for medical purposes. The imputation against the petitioner had been that the said pass carried validity upto 19.06.2004 for travelling in Second Class for the purpose of treatment at the Railway Hospital, Jodhpur but, during the vigilance checking conducted on board in Train No.4060 on 12.07.2004 in a 3-tier AC coach between Jodhpur to Degana stations, Mr. Rohit, son of the petitioner, was found travelling as an irregular passenger on the said pass whereas the patient, i.e., the wife of the petitioner, was not found travelling in the said train. It was alleged that when the son of the applicant was caught, he was subjected to verification and it was found that the validity of the pass was over but the words "to onwards" were added after the validity date in the pass without the knowledge of the concerned authority. It was thus imputed that the petitioner committed forgery by addition of the words in the pass and then, permitted misuse of the pass for travelling by his son without the patient, for whose purpose the pass had been issued. On the imputations aforesaid, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet, was allowed to submit his reply, and after due proceedings, the inquiry report dated 30.10.2007 was submitted with the finding that all the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved; and that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and contravened the Railway Service Conduct Rules. The disciplinary authority ultimately passed the order dated 17.12.2007 holding the petitioner guilty and imposing the penalty of reduction to lower stage in the same time-scale while observing as under: - "I have carefully considered your representation dated 26/30.9.2005 in reply to the Memorandum of Charge sheet (SF-5) of even number dated 13.9.2005, and your further representation dated 19.11.2007 in reply to DAR Inquiry report dt.30.10.2007 served upon you on 8.11.2007. I do not find your representation to be satisfactory due to the following reasons: - 1. Fraudulent use of IInd class Medical Pass No.337830 dt.18.6.2004 issued by Sr. DMO/Degana by your son has been proved who travelled alone as an attendant without patient that too in 3 tier AC of Train No.4060 on 12.7.2004. 2. It has also been proved that the said medical pass was used by your family members several times without attending the Rly Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment. 3. It has been proved by hand writing expert that addition of word "to onward" after validity date 19.06.2004 in the pass has been done by you in your own handwriting. I, therefore, hold you guilty of the charge(s) viz as levelled vide SF-5 of even number dated 13.9.2005 and have decided to impose upon you the penalty of reduction to lower stage in same time scale. Your are, therefore, reduced from the stage of Rs.7950/- to the stage of Rs.7425/- in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 you are holding at present for period of 3 years from the date of this order with postponing future increments." The petitioner appealed against the order aforesaid; and as per the communication dated 05.09.2008, the appellate authority found no reason to interfere and maintained the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner questioned the aforesaid orders dated 17.12.2007 and 05.09.2008 in the OA before the CAT. The CAT posed the question to the petitioner-applicant if he was challenging the process adopted by the department during the inquiry and noted the response that the procedure and process was not being challenged as the applicant had been afforded the opportunity of being heard and the defence assistant was also provided. However, it was suggested that some documents were not made available to the applicant. The CAT in its detailed order dated 15.07.2011 not only found the OA baseless but even made further comments that it had been a case of gross misconduct where the penalty as imposed had been lesser and rather inadequate. The CAT proceed to dismiss the OA with costs, inter alia, with the following observations:- "7. We had asked the applicant specifically whether he challenges the process adopted by the department during the enquiry. Applicant's counsel would say that he is not challenging the procedure and process, as the applicant has been afforded an opportunity of being heard, and the defence assistance was also provided to him. He would say that process and procedure was in accordance with the natural justice. But he would say that some documents were not made available to the applicant. He wanted a special enlightenment as to the rules, which he would say that how and why the medical pass has to be issued to a railway servant. It is actually a special duty pass, as even the same can be granted for the medical purpose and for multiple occasions like sports and others. Therefore, this objection of the applicant does not seem to be valid and worthwhile. 8. Therefore, it would appear that forgery has been committed on the official documents by the applicant in his own handwriting, and even if the quantum of loss thereby realised later by the Railways was Rs.511/-, it has come out now that the pass has continuously been used for many a times, therefore, we feel that the punishment awarded to the applicant was inadequate and the respondents have failed to quantum and adequacy. We went through the whole pleadings and heard the learned counsels. We found his contention to be frivolous in nature. The punishment imposed on the applicant was inadequate, but the producer and process complaint with natural justice has been observed, and therefore, we find that process and procedure used by the Railways was justified, and the actual lacunae was that there was inadequate punishment, but since it is not a matter before us under the law, therefore, we restrain ourselves from commenting on it. We also note that there are several partners in this crime like the T.T.Es., who allowed this usage etc. 9. It may also be noted that the then concerned Ticket Collector/TTE, who gave another free pass to the son of the applicant, who was found travelling without proper authorization in 3 tier AC coach, was also not proceeded against, therefore, obviously there is some lacunae in the administrative process of the Railways. Therefore, a copy of this order shall be sent to the Secretary of the Railway Board for him to look into this matter and take appropriate steps in this regard within a time frame of six months next. 10. Having found that the Original Application lacks merit and is frivolous and vexatious, therefore, it is dismissed. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) upon the applicant to be paid to the Railways."
(3.) SEEKING to question the order as passed by the CAT, the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that the finding about interpolation in the pass with inclusion of words "onwards" is totally baseless and not supported by admissible evidence. It is further submitted that so far the alleged act of travelling was concerned, in the first place, the petitioner had not taken any such journey and then, an amount of Rs.511/- was deducted from his salary just after issuance of charge-sheet. It is submitted that the CAT has failed to consider that the penalty had already been imposed on the petitioner even before conclusion of the inquiry. It is also contended that the submission of the petitioner that he could not be penalized for the alleged misdeeds of his son and that even otherwise, no loss was caused to the railways, have not been given due consideration. It is also averred in the petition that "the petitioner has been penalized with grave punishment inasmuch as he has suffered a loss of huge amount including loss of seniority for such a small incident". We are afraid, the contentions as sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner are neither tenable nor make out any case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. It remains trite that in the matter of disciplinary inquiry the scope of judicial review remains limited; and is essentially to the extent of considering if the inquiry had been conducted in a fair manner with due adherence to the requirements of the rules and to the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice without causing prejudice to the delinquent. The merits of the case and the findings in the disciplinary proceedings are ordinarily not reviewed by the Courts; and re-appreciation of the matter on merits is not taken up unless an extreme case like that of bias or total perversity is made out. ;