HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.14333 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 03-1-2008 passed in O.A.No.75 of 2006 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent herein is the applicant in the above O.A. while the petitioners herein are the respondents. The allegation against the applicant, who was working at the relevant time as Head ticket Travelling Examiner in the Express Train No.1003 between Jalna and Purna, was that he had permitted four passengers to travel without tickets and an amount of Rs.768 was collected from him. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry conducted and a report was submitted stating that the applicant was guilty of the misconduct. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. However, the reviewing authority modified the punishment to that of reduction to lower grade to the post of Ticket Collector in the scale of Rs.3050- 4590 for a period of five years with recurring effect at the bottom of the seniority. The applicant filed O.A. challenging the punishment and the Tribunal had remitted the matter to the revisionary authority to review the punishment imposed on the applicant. Hence, this writ petition by the official respondents. 3. Heard learned standing counsel for petitioners. Learned standing counsel for petitioners contended that the revisionary authority had taken lenient view and reduced the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the discretion exercised by the authority. 4. We have considered the contentions of learned standing counsel and perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Vs. HARYANA ELECTRICITY BOARD (Civil Appeal No.301 of 1981) and the decisions of Tribunals of Jabalpur and Cuttack Benches, and after applying the ratio laid down therein, to the present facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the punishment as imposed in the present case would amount to double punishment. We do not find any compelling reasons to take a different view. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 07-07-2008 bsc