IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.26210 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 A.Subramaniam ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Trichy. 3. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Madurai. 4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. .. Respondents The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in connection with the order passed by the 4th respondent in O.A.No.354 of 2007 dated 1-7-2009 together with charge sheet No.T/PC16/596 dated 14-5-2004 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and void. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner: Mr.V.Parthiban for M/s. Paul and Paul O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.354 of 2007, whereby the said application was disposed of in favour of the respondents herein. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in controversy that the petitioner one A.Subramaniam was served with a charge memo on 14.5.2004 under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1968. The gist of the charge memo was that, on the date when one M.A.S.Hussain, Travelling Ticket Examiner, Southern Railway who was rosted to work on the Train No.6715 on 28.3.2003 in Rameswaran - Coimbatore Section could not report to work in view of his sickness, the applicant/petitioner herein was assigned the work on the Train No.6716 Rameswaram – Coimbatore in the place of Mr.Hussain. Accordingly, the petitioner performed his duty in the place of Mr.Hussain on that date. While he was performing his duty on 28/29.8.2003, he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.230/- from a Constable P.R. Sushil Kumar for allotting berth Nos.14 and 15 in S3 Coach but he had issued receipt only for Rs.132/- and pocketed the rest. Following the same, there was a complaint and a charge memo was issued. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquiry the same. Then, there was change of Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, on the side of the Department, P.W.1 was examined in-chief and he was also cross- examined in-part. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has made an application in O.A.No.354 of 2007 before the Tribunal in order to quash the charge memo. An opportunity was given to the Department to putforth its counter. The Tribunal, on enquiry, found that the application does not carry any merits whatsoever and disposed of the said application in favour of the respondents. Under such circumstances, the writ petition has arisen. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would submit that it was a case where a Constable who was working in the Vigilance Department was employed for the purpose of trapping and this was also the case of the respondents that he was employed for the purpose of trap. As per the charge memo there was demand and acceptance of Rs.230/- from the said constable for allotting the berths but a receipt was given only for Rs.132/- and the balance of Rs.98/- was pocketed by the petitioner. So long as it was the case of trap, the procedural formalities should have been followed. When there is a trap by the Vigilance Wing of Southern Railways, certain procedural formalities are mandatory, which has to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be followed and so long as that it is not followed, the charge memo has to be quashed. The learned counsel took the Court to the Rulings of the Apex Court and submitted that the charge memo should have been quashed. On the contrary, the Tribunal has taken an erroneous view. 4. After looking into the materials available and also hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court for more reasons than one. 5. As could be seen from the available materials, the petitioner was assigned the work on Train No.6716 on 28.3.2003 in Rameshwaram – Coimbatore section in the place of one Mr.Husain, a Travelling Ticket Examiner. It is also true, as could be seen from the records that the constable Sushil kumar was travelling in the said train. From the counter filed by the respondents it is seen that he was actually deputed for the purpose of checking. It is pertinent to point out that nowhere in the charge memo it was found that there was trap. The learned counsel for the petitioner took the court to the counter and pointed out the sentence "he has been trapped". As could be seen from the materials available, the constable was deputed only for the purpose of checking the petitioner herein since there were complaints against him. Hence, it could not be termed as trap. It is not disputed that in a case of trap, the procedure should be followed by the Vigilance Wing of Southern Railways which are found to be mandatory, but in the instant case, it was only for the purpose of check up, a constable was deputed, since there was complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner received Rs.230/- from the said constable for allotting berths and he has given receipt only for Rs.132/- and pocketed the rest. So long as, no material is available that there was any trap at the instance of the Vigilance Wing of Southern Railway, no procedural formalities though mandatory is required. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that there was non-compliance of the procedural formalities is only to vitiate the charge memo. Apart from this, when the charge memo was served upon the petitioner, the petitioner has putforth his explanation and he has submitted to the jurisdiction and the Enquiry Officer was also changed. P.W.1 was examined on the side of the Railways and P.W.1 was also cross examined in part. Under such circumstances, the original application has been brought forth by the petitioner which in the considered opinion of the Court is vexatious. Hence, the Tribunal is perfectly correct in disposing of the application in favour of the respondents. 6. It is also noticed that the enquiry is pending for nearly about four years. Therefore, it would be fit and proper to issue a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within a reasonable time, accordingly, a direction is issued. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. vsi Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1. The General Manager, Union of India, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Trichy. 3. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Madurai. 4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. + 1 cc to M/s. Paul & Paul, Advocate SR.4556 W.P.No.26210 of 2009 SSK(CO) EU 4.02.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/