THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 19804 OF 2011 O R D E R : The writ petitioner was granted a licence for carrying on Rail Travel Service Agency initially for a period of three years commencing from 28.04.1997 which was extended from time to time. It is stated that the petitioner has carried on the said service agency quite effectively for 15 years. But, however, when some adverse information reached the railway administration, a decoy operation was carried out by the vigilance branch on 27th and 28th December 2010 on the petitioner’s service agency and the vigilance branch noticed that excess fare of Rs.68/- has been collected over and above the normal fare. Immediately, an appropriate show cause notice was drawn on 10.02.2011, calling for the explanation of the petitioner. The writ petitioner filed his explanation on 17.02.2011. It should be stated that the petitioner has not disputed the correctness or veracity of the findings of the vigilance branch about the excess fare collection. However, he pleaded that his employee endorsed on the back of the ticket envelope the charges collected by him and asked the passenger to come and collect the balance amount after some time. He, therefore, sincerely regretted that such a mistake had occurred at his agency. He assured the railways that such errors will not get repeated henceforth, but, nonetheless, the Divisional Commercial Manager, Secunderabad Division has viewed the misconduct as a grave act on the part of the service agency, in as much as collection of excess fare from the commuting public is not to be taken lightly, as the reputation of the railway administration itself will be dented in the process. Therefore, he passed orders on 21.02.2011 terminating with immediate effect the service agency of the petitioner. Challenging the validity of this order, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard Sri K.V. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri C. Rajiv Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. C.V.Vinitha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the petitioner had functioned as a service agency of the Indian Railways for 15 years and has a blemishless record all through. All due to a stray and solitary instance, that too committed by an employee of the agency, too grave an order has been passed against the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that imposition of a hefty penalty would produce the desired result instead of totally terminating the agency. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that until and unless some adverse information reaches the railway administration, they will normally be assuming that the service agency is carrying on its business properly and only in extraordinary circumstances, decoy operations are carried out by the vigilance branch of the railways. It is essentially incumbent for the railway administration to protect itself from any possible criticism at the hands of the commuting public that they are charged of excess fare. The commuting public, according to the learned Standing Counsel and in my opinion rightly so, would assume that this excess fare reaches the pockets of some one or the other concerned with the railway administration and it would seldom be assumed that the excess fare has been unauthorizedly collected by the service agency, for its own private profit. It is, therefore, the fair name of the railway administration, which receives a beating in the process. Stray and solitary instances are certainly capable of offering a strong platform for the eventual action as contemplated under the agreement. There cannot be any rule to the contra that stray or solitary instances should not be viewed seriously. Indulging in collection of excess fare by the service agents is certainly a grave act. It is not merely the violation of the terms of the contract, but it amounts to impacting the fair name and reputation of the Indian Railways as a whole. Such cases certainly deserve a strong condemnation, but then, the question is - termination of the agency is the only solution available or a hefty penalty, which would have caused a dent to the profits of the service agency itself, would have produced the desired correction of the error committed by such an agency. This is where the discretion lies with the officers of the railway administration. In normal circumstances, imposition of penalty at the first instance should have become the choice instead of terminating the agency itself. A repeat of the mistake, perhaps, would have resulted in cancellation of the agency, gains acceptability, as the service agency is a recalcitrant one not amenable or prone for gentle methods of persuasion to correct himself. In such cases, the termination would have been an appropriate course. Since the respondents, to my mind, have not properly assessed the penalty that is liable to be imposed in a case of this nature, I should have normally remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. Instead, I take a cue from an earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5382 of 2010, dated 09.02.2011. I, therefore, direct the respondents to collect as penalty a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from the petitioner and also an undertaking from him that he will not leave any room henceforth for indulging in any irregularity, including collection of excess fare or excess commission charges, etcetera and if he gives room for any such complaint henceforth, he will abide by the decision including termination of his agency. Ten days’ time is granted to the petitioner to draw the amount of penalty by way of an account payee demand draft and submit the same to the Chief Commercial Manager, Rail Nilayam, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and upon receipt of the said sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty, the Chief Commercial Manager will communicate the order of resumption and currency of the period of agency for the reminder of the period from the date of such resumption. Sri C. Rajiv Reddy, learned counsel has opposed standardizing the format of the orders passed by this Court routinely imposing a fine of only Rs.10,000/- on the erring licensees, who are granted the Rail Travel Service Agency. As there is a specific averment made by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that when the petitioner agency was caught for the first time, they warned him to be careful enough and in spite of that, he repeated this to be a second mistake, I consider it expedient to add the following condition additionally: The writ petitioner shall give an undertaking to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager that he will exhibit at the office premises of the travel agency a caution to all passenger public not to pay any additional amount than is allowable to the employees of the agency and in case, any employee with or without the knowledge of the petitioner herein commits the irregularity of collecting more money, he will undertake not to claim any equities thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 21st September 2011 ksld