1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4769 of 2008 [Sheikh Isak Sk. Kadar Vs. Union of India & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.W. Harsulkar with Mr. A.B. Bambal, Advs. For the petitioner. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 11th November,2008. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. M.W. Harsulkar with Adv. Mr. A.B. Bambal for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting petitioner's Original Application as well as Application for Review therein. 3. Petitioner was dealt with for misconduct of:- [a] charging a sum of Rs.50/- in excess of fare; [b] being found in possession of excess cash of collection of sale of tickets of a sum of Rs.66/-; and, [c] found to possess in excess of personal cash, a sum of Rs.150/-. 2 4. Petitioner's explanation as to:- [i] Item [a] above is that the decoy passenger voluntarily left Rs.50/- out of Rs.75/- returned to him. He then urges that decoy witness being a Railway Protection Force Policeman, could not be an independent witness. [ii] Item [b] above, namely excess cash of Rs.66/-, is that it was the cash - balance returned notes-coins were not collected by the passengers. [iii] Item [c], i.e., excess personal cash, is that it was the amount given by his friend for collecting tickets for him. 5. The defence noted above is incorporated by the petitioner in the Statement of Defence furnished by him, copy whereof is at Annexure-P- 9. 6. It is noticed from oral submissions as advanced before this Court, as well, as were seen advanced before the Tribunal that entire emphasis was given on correctness of R.P.F. Personnel being a decoy passenger. 7. It is seen that any explanation or defence worth acceptable nature was not put forward as regards excess cash. 3 8 Petitioner has not shown as to which rule precludes the employer from availing services of RPF personnel as decoy passenger in Departmental proceedings and matters of vigilance. It is clear that a statement of a Police witness was not being used in a criminal case. 9. To rely further on the point that police personnel should not have been used as decoy passenger, learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on reported Judgment in case of Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India & another [2008 (2)Services Law Reporter 818]. 10. This Court has perused and considered this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moni Shankar's case [cited supra] relied upon by the petitioner. 11. We are of considered view that the grievance that the trap was improperly arranged being in violation of Paras 704 and 705 of Vigilance Manual has no bearing in present case. Present is not a case of denial of sale of ticket and collection of marked currency notes from decoy passenger as well of denial of recovering excess cash than fare. Petitioner's defence is that the decoy passenger tendered two notes of Rs. 100/-, collected ticket and Rs.25/-only out of Rs.75/-, 4 but did not collect - left there a note of Rs.50/- out of the returned money. Thus, present is a case where compliance of paras 704 and 705 became insignificant in view of admitted facts and specific defence. 12. In the background discussed above, the Judgment of Moni Shankar [cited supra] is of no benefit to the petitioner. 13. Considering collective effect of three acts of misconduct forming part of the charge, case at hand emerges to be one where the misconduct charged has been proved. 14. It is seen that the findings of Ennquiry Officer are legal and proper and this Court cannot enter the arena of propriety of punishment when it is ordered in accordance with rules in the background that the Tribunal has found the action to be legal and proper. 15. The petition, therefore, does not merit interference, and is dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau| 5