IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3942 of 2009 Between: 1 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 The Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction-I, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND B.Moses, R/o. 10-3-115, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderbad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other apprpriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of the WRit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 02.09.2008 rendered in O.A.NO.18 of 2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad quash and set aside the same as it is contrary to law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.C.V.VINITHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.9.2008 passed in O.A.NO. 180 of 2006 on the file of the Cnetral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by virtue of which, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. The respondent herein approached the Tribunal challenging the proceedings dated 5.8.2005, which reads thus: “ Sub: Vigilance case against Shri B. Moses, JE/C/P.WAY/SC. In connection with the above, CVC has advised to recover Rs. 1,28,100/- from your salary. As you are retiring on 31.8.2005 due to superannuation it is proposed to recover from your settlement dues. This is for your information.” The said proceedings were quashed by the Tribunal. The charges framed against the respondent-applicant reads as under: “Article-I: That the said Sri B. Moses, JE/P.Way-Gr.I/S/SC, while working as PWI/Gr.III/C/SC during the period 1992- 1994 has committed a serious misconduct/misbehaviour in that he failed to immediately hand over the permanent Way materials, stores and related ledgers to the successor CPWI/C/SNF which caused the theft of railway property worth lakhs of rupees. Thus, the said Sri B. Moses, JE/P.Way- Gr-I/C/SC has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of railway servant violating 3(1) (ii) and 3(1)(iii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966. Article-II: That the said Sri B. Moses, JE/P.Way-Gr.I/S/SC, while working as PWI/Gr.III/C/SC during the period 1992- 1994 has committed a serious misconduct/misbehaviour in that he failed to pursue IPF/RPF/HYB for registration of theft taken place in his jurisdiction and failed to recover the railway property worth lakhs of rupees. Thus, the said Sr. B. Moses, JE/P.Way Gr.I/C/SC has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of Railway servant violating 3(1)(ii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.” The Tribunal found that the first charge was partially proved and as regards the second charge, it held that it was not proved. More over with regard to the first charge the Enquiry Officer observed that it has been proved in part to the extent that the applicant is responsible for the delay in handing over the permanent way materials, stores and related ledgers to his successor and accordingly the Tribunal held that the authorities are not justified in making such proposal of recovering the amount from the applicant in a separate proceedings and accordingly set aside the impugned proceedings dated 5.8.2005. The learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the proceedings inasmuch as the loss caused to the department has to be recovered and he has drawn our attention to Indian Railway Financial code volume-I Chapter XI, reporting and investigation of loss of cash, stores or other railways property losses, frauds and embezzlements. Wherein point No. 1101 indicates Responsibility for Losses, point 1102 indicates Report of Losses and point No. 1103 indicates that General Manger’s detailed report should clearly bring out (a) the amount involved and recovered, (b) The modus-operandi of the fraud and (c) The nature of checks which ought to have been exercised under any rule or order and which were omitted, thereby facilitating the fraud. The counsel also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the proceedings, which were only at the stage of proposals and that he has given an explanation. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the respondent is not responsible for the loss caused to the department and inasmuch as the specific finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer, the Railways have withheld an amount of Rs. 1,28,100/- from his retirement settlement dues. He further contended that the Tribunal has rightly observed that in the absence of any quantification of arriving of figures and the basis for such arriving of figures and inasmuch as when there is no specific finding that the respondent is responsible for causing loss the railway department is not justified in withholding an amount of Rs. 1,28,100/-. He submits that the Tribunal has considered this aspect and rightly quashed the proceedings. He placed reliance on the judgment reported in LAKSHMI NARAYAN MUKHOPADHYAY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[1], the relevant portion at paragraph 4, which reads as under: “There is nothing in the letter to show that this amount was arrived at after giving opportunity to the appellant or that the amount due was quantified by the date of retirement. The alleged letter dated 12.6.1991 giving show-cause notice has not been brought on record or referred to in the impugned order. Moreover, what guidelines were not followed by the appellant, was also not indicated in the letter. We, therefore, hold that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 24.2.1995 in O.A.No. 1170 of 1993isnot sustainable and is accordingly set aside. We direct the respondents to pay the amount within two months. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for interest at the rate of 12%.” The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the proceedings? We have perused the proceedings dated 5.8.2005. The proceedings do not disclose any reasons much less valid reasons. It is only a proposal and there is no quantification, no assessment made and there is no mention on what basis they arrived the figure of loss caused. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly quashed the proceedings inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer held that the second charge was not proved, therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, we direct the petitioners-Railway authorities to return back the money to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, petitioners-Railway Department is given liberty, if it so desires to recover the amount from the employee, it can recover the same other than the amount covered under Article-II after showing valid reasons i.e., quantification of loss, and on what basis they arrived that particular figure. The respondent shall be given an opportunity of being heard and after careful consideration of explanation if any submitted by the respondent, the petitioners shall pass appropriate order indicating all the things. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 30.03.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] (2002)10 SCC 379