1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3535 OF 2010 K. Adikesavan ..Petitioner. Versus Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Sandeep V. Marne for the petitioner. Mr.T.J. Pandian for the respondents. CORAM : B.H. Marlapalle, & U.D. Salvi, JJ. DATE : 29th September, 2010. P.C. : (Per U.D. Salvi, J.) Heard. Perused the petition and record therewith. Rule. Taken up for final disposal. The judgment and order dated 20th February 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No.364 of 2005 confirming the order of the reduction of the petitioner to the lowest stage in the same time-scale for a period of three years with postponement of future increments without loss of seniority in the disciplinary proceedings by 2 order dated 18th June 2003 is challenged in the present petition. There were three charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. Firstly, it was alleged that the petitioner failed to prepare EFR receipts of three passengers. Secondly, it was alleged that the petitioner snatched a railway priviledge pass from one Mr.Sanjay H. Sonawane during preparation of a vigilance document and threw it out of the window of the running train; and thirdly it was alleged that th petitioner showed gross noncooperation towards Vigilance Team, thereby violating Rule 26 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules. In the enquiry which followed, Mr.A.N. Mridha and Mr.S.V. Jagtap, members of the Vigilance Team who had detected the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid acts causing loss to the railway revenue during the preventive check conducted by them in the sleeper coach of Punjab Mail on 28/29th September 1997, were examined. One more witness Mr.Amardeo Yadav cited in the charge-sheet was not examined. The Enquiry Officer at the end of the enquiry submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority to the effect that all the three charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of reversion to the grade of Rs.4,000-6,000 for a period of three years with cumulative effect vide order dated 23rd November 2002. The appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by orders dated 21st January 2001 and 26th September 2001 3 respectively. The said orders were challenged in Original Application No.214 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the said orders and remanded the matter back with directions to proceed from the stage of examination by the Enquiry Officer as provided in Rule 9 (21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and to grant personal hearing to the applicant, if requested and to pass a reasoned order under intimation to the applicant within a period of three months. The Enquiry Officer thereupon examined the third witness Mr.Amardeo Yadav on 4th May 2003. The petitioner did not examine anybody in his defence. This time again, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty on all counts and submitted enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner submitted a representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer on 4th June 2003. The Respondent No.3 – Divisional Commercial Manager (Cog), Mumbai Division thereupon accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed penalty of ‘reduction to the lowest stage in the same time scale fixing the pay at Rs.5,000/- for three years with postponement of the future increment without loss of seniority’. The appeal preferred by the petitioner thereafter came to be rejected on 14th March 2005. Thereupon the petitioner filed Original Application No.364 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai challenging the orders dated 18th June 2003 and 14th March 2005. The learned Tribunal after 4 hearing both the sides passed impugned Judgment and Order dated 26th February 2010 dismissing the said Original Application. The learned Advocate Sandeep Marne for the petitioner invited our attention to the findings dated 29th September 2000 and the reasons given therefor by the Enquiry Officer and submitted that in the absence of evidence of signatories to the statements recorded by the Vigilance team i.e. the passengers who were either ticketless or with second class mail tickets in S-1 Coach of the Punjab Mail as well as the RPF personnel aiding the Vigilance team in the preventive check, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were unsustainable. He further pointed out from the testimony of Mr.Amardeo Yadav that except subscribing the signature to the statement, he did not contribute anything in support of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties found that it was not the case of “no evidence”, but that of “sufficient evidence”. Pertinently, the learned Tribunal observed that the petitioner refused to examine himself as a witness in his own cause or examine anybody else to disprove the facts asserted by the two witnesses, who had conducted the preventive check, despite sufficient opportunity given to him. The learned Tribunal also, with reference to the Cholan Roadways Limited (Cholan Roadways Ltd., Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [2005 SCC (L&S) 395] reiterated the standard of 5 proof required in the domestic enquiry in the following words : “that in the domestic enquiry strict principles of Evidence Act are not applicable and the standard of proof required in such departmental enquiries is that of ‘preponderance of probability’.” The learned Tribunal further observed that the Disciplinary Authority namely Mr.John Varkey had applied his mind to the enquiry report and had passed a reasoned order imposing the punishment in question and the plea of mala fide remained unsupported by any reliable evidence. No flaw was seen by the learned Tribunal in conduct of the said departmental enquiry against the petitioner. On the contrary, it observed that the respondents have been lenient in imposing the punishment on the applicant, despite the serious misconduct committed by him. We also find merit in the observations of the learned Tribunal, particularly in view of graphic and unshaken evidence of Mr.A.N. Mridha and Mr.S.V. Jagtap, members of the Vigilance team who conducted preventive check at the material time. Nothing comes off the testimony of Mr.Amardeo Yadav either in support of the petitioner. The petition must, therefore, fail. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (U.D. Salvi, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle, J.)