IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15918 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.155/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS, CHENNAI 600 003. 2. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, CHENNAI 600 003. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 4. THE SR.DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.J.GANDHI, S/O.G.KOIL PILLAI, BOOKING SUPERVISOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TIRUNELVELI, RESIDING AT ALAVANDAN KULAM, PALLIKOTTAI POST, SANKAR NAGAR, TIRUNELVELI. ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA SRI.P.N.PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 15918/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 30.7.2000 OF RESPONDENT TO DRM/CN/PGT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF O.A.155/2003, FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN CAT, ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RAILWAY IN CAT, IN O.A.155/2003. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.A.155/2003. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 16.2.2006 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM IN O.A.155/2003. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 15918 OF 2006-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd February, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.155/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners and the applicant therein is the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondent was charge-sheeted for having received extra amount for booking a consignment. The respondent was trapped on 6.4.2000. An R.P.F. Constable pretending himself to be a passenger, booked a parcel. Though the booking charge was only Rs.520/-, the respondent allegedly received Rs.580/. The notes paid were previously marked under a mahazar. The respondent was served with Annexure-A4 charge memo dated 23.6.2000. Since he denied the charges, an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted Annexure-A7 report dated 31.5.2001. After following the due procedure, by Annexure-A1 dated 3.9.2001, a penalty of reduction of pay WPC 15918/2006 2 by one stage for a period of two years with recurring effect was imposed on him. He filed Annexure-A9 appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Annexure-A2 order. He filed Annexure-A10 revision, which was dismissed by Annexure-A3 order. Challenging Annexures-A1 to A3, the O.A was filed. The C.A.T., by Ext.P5 order dated 16.2.2006, allowed the O.A and quashed Annexures-A1 to A3 orders. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. Before the C.A.T., the main point canvassed was that the trap was laid and executed not as provided under the Manual governing vigilance proceedings. According to the relevant provisions in the Manual, as far as possible, two gazetted officers should be asked to be present as witnesses. Only in exceptional cases, the services of non-gazetted officers could be utilized. Admittedly, in this case, gazetted officers were not present as witnesses. The Tribunal found that it is a serious irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter. Relying on a decision of the C.A.T., Hyderabad Bench, which was affirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal allowed the O.A and quashed the impugned orders. 4. Now, it is common case that the decision of the Hyderabad Bench, relied on by the Ernakulam Bench of the C.A.T in the present impugned order has been reversed by the Apex Court by the decision in Chief WPC 15918/2006 3 Commercial Manager & Ors. v. G.Ratnam [(2007)8 SCC 212]. 5. Any one, who has anything to do with the appreciation of evidence must know that there cannot be any hard and fast rule concerning reliability of witnesses. Non-gazetted officers, who are witnesses, may be, in some cases, more reliable than gazetted officers. That will depend upon the facts of each case. So, there is no reason or justification to reject the evidence of non-gazetted officers at the threshold. Further, the guidelines in the Manual are generally meant to guide and not to govern. Unless prejudice is shown, violation of the provisions in the Manual does not ipso facto nullify the entire proceedings. In this case, we notice that the Tribunal did not venture to consider the case on merits. But, it simply followed the decision of the Hyderabad Bench. We also notice that the respondent has got other grounds also to impugn the orders, Annexures A1 to A3. In view of the above position, the impugned order of the C.A.T is set aside and O.A.No.155/2003 is remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to both sides. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Tribunal shall examine the records of the enquiry and find out whether any prejudice has been caused by the violation of the provisions in the Manual and whether the evidence on record could be acted upon, WPC 15918/2006 4 even if the witnesses are non-gazetted officers. Needless to say, the Tribunal shall also consider the other contentions raised on behalf of the respondent/applicant. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nm/