Om Prakash -Vii, Member (J)
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 31.8.2012, 07.01.2013 and 09.04.2013 passed by the respondent No. 4, 3 & 2 (Annexure No. A-1, A-2 and A-3 to this original application).
(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow all consequential benefits including difference of salary along with interest.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while serving at Counter No.2 in the Booking Office at Azamgarh Railway Station, was charged with misusing government funds by allegedly issuing a mismatch UTS ticket (No. F24082356/Slash No. 2357) and using the amount collected for personal purposes. A departmental charge sheet was issued, and an inquiry was conducted as per the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The applicant denied the charges, claiming the ticket mismatch resulted from a technical error and that the amount was promptly handed over to the supervisor. Following the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the charges to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by four stages permanently by order dated 31.08.2012, which was later reduced to three stages permanently by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 07.01.2013. The applicant’s revision petition was also rejected on 09.04.2013. Aggrieved by aforesaid decisions, the applicant filed the present Original Application before this Tribunal, seeking to quash the impugned orders.
3. The respondents have opposed the Original Application by filing the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the applicant has admitted that she has not deposited the surplus amount of Rs.905/- in the Government Treasury, as was her duty. Although the applicant claimed to have handed over the said amount to Shri Nand Lal Ram, Booking Supervisor, the said supervisor had merely made an entry in the EB column of the DTC Book and returned the amount to the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant subsequently used the money for personal needs, thereby substantiating the charge of misappropriation. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the penalty imposed upon the applicant for reduction of pay by four stages permanently was already lenient view. The Appellate Authority, taking a further lenient view, reduced the penalty to three stages permanently, despite the applicant’s appeal being filed beyond the prescribed 45-day limit. A suo moto show cause notice was issued by the Revisional Authority due to the delay, but ultimately the Appellate Authority chose to consider the appeal and grant partial relief. The applicant’s revision petition dated 21.01.2013 was also duly considered and decided by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 31.07.2023. Thus, disciplinary actions taken were proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved and in compliance with the rules. Hence, the Original Application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant in which the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
5 We have heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer and subsequently accepted by the Disciplinary Authority is unsustainable in law, as it is based on mere presumption rather than any direct or conclusive evidence of misappropriation or dishonest intent on the part of the applicant. He has further argued that the plea of the applicant that the mismatch in the UTS ticket was due to a technical fault in the computer or network has not been properly investigated or rebutted by the Inquiry Officer. Further, respondents failed to analyse that the applicant immediately handed over the disputed amount to her supervisor, Shri Nand Lal Ram, stands unrebutted and should have weighed heavily in her favor. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice, particularly as RUD-1 and RUD-3 were relied upon despite the applicant's specific objection that these documents were not prepared in her presence. The denial of a fair opportunity to cross-examine or challenge the authenticity of these documents renders the findings legally valid. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that the Inquiry Officer failed to consider the applicant’s past service record and her cooperation during the inquiry, lack of any prior disciplinary history, and prompt reporting of the issue to the supervisor. These factors go to show that there was no deliberate or dishonest intention on her part. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly argued that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct. In absence of any actual financial loss to the Railways and in view of the fact that the amount was not retained by the applicant, imposition of permanent reduction in pay violates the doctrine of proportionality laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several service jurisprudence cases. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority are mechanical and lack application of mind, thus, these are liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant herself admitted that the surplus amount of ₹905/-collected from the sale of the mismatch UTS ticket was not deposited in the Government Treasury, which she was duty-bound to do under the prescribed financial and operational procedures of the Railways. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that while the applicant claimed to have handed over the said amount to Booking Supervisor Shri Nand Lal Ram, the supervisor only made a routine entry in the EB column of the DTC Book and returned the amount to the applicant. It is established from the record that the applicant thereafter failed to redeposit the amount in the treasury and instead used it for her personal needs, amounting to a clear case of misappropriation and breach of trust. It has also been argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the principles of natural justice were duly observed. The applicant was given full opportunity to defend herself, appoint a defence assistant, and submit her explanation under Rule 9(21). The Inquiry Officer examined the documentary evidence and witnesses and submitted a reasoned report holding the charges as proved. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by four stages permanently, which was reduced by the Appellate Authority by reducing the penalty to three stages permanently despite the applicant's appeal being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Revisional Authority, too, considered the matter and passed a reasoned order rejecting the revision petition. It has further been argued that the punishment imposed upon the applicant is proportionate to the gravity of the charges, considering the nature of the financial misconduct and the position of trust held by the applicant. Misappropriation of government money, even of a small amount, is a serious matter in public service, and the disciplinary authorities have acted within their jurisdiction and discretion. Thus, the Original Application lacks merit and calls for no interference by this Tribunal, as there is no procedural irregularity, no violation of natural justice, and no perversity in the findings recorded by the departmental authorities.
8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the entire record.
9. Upon careful analysis of aforesaid facts, this Tribunal finds no merit in the contentions raised by the applicant. It is an admitted position that the surplus amount of Rs.905/-, arising out of the issuance of a mismatch UTS ticket, was not deposited by the applicant in the Government Treasury, which was her duty to do so. Her claim that the error happened due to a technical fault remains unsubstantiated and is not supported by any independent technical report or corroborative evidence.
10. The record clearly reflects that the said amount was temporarily handled by the Booking Supervisor, Shri Nand Lal Ram, who made an entry in the EB column of the DTC Book and returned the amount to the applicant. The applicant, having failed to deposit the same thereafter and having utilized it for personal purposes, has rightly been held guilty of misappropriation of government funds. The conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer is not based on mere presumption but on cogent documentary evidence, duly evaluated during a fair inquiry proceeding.
11. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is also without substance. The applicant was afforded ample opportunity to defend herself. She engaged a defence assistant and filed written submissions and thereafter she cross-examined the witnesses. The reliance on RUD-1 and RUD-3, which the applicant claims were not prepared in her presence, does not by itself vitiate the inquiry in the absence of any material to show prejudice or fabrication. No material irregularity or procedural infirmity has been demonstrated to warrant interference by this Tribunal.
12. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the proven misconduct, imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by four stages permanently, which was further reduced to three stages permanently by the Appellate Authority. This itself reflects the considerate approach adopted by the appellate authority. The Revisional Authority also examined the matter and found no justification to interfere. The entire process has been done in consonance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
13. On the question of whether the punishment was too harsh, the courts/tribunals in a catena of decisions held that the Tribunal should not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly unfair. Misusing government money, even a small amount, is a serious issue, especially for someone in a trusted role. So, the punishment given cannot be called too harsh or unfair.
14. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, the findings are supported by evidence, and the penalty imposed is commensurate with the nature of the misconduct. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities, thus, OA lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, OA is dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending MAs are disposed of.
