THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16791 OF 2011 29th August, 2011. BETWEEN: SRI.ADI RAMANA REDDY .. PETITIONER AND SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER RAIL BHAVAN, SECUNDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16791 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 5.5.2000 which was extended from time to time. It is stated that the petitioner has carried on the said service agency quite effectively for over 10 years. But, however, when some adverse information reached the railway administration a decoy operation was carried out by the Vigilance Branch on 27.12.2010 and on 19.01.2011 on the petitioner’s service agency and the Vigilance Branch noticed that excess fare of Rs.120/- has been collected over and above the normal fare + service charge of Rs.30/- + Rs.20/- towards cancellation charges. Immediately, an appropriate show cause notice was drawn on 14.03.2011 calling for the explanation of the petitioner. The writ petitioner filed his explanation on 21.03.2011. 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 this mischief was indulged in by one particular employee by name Sri.Hanumanth Reddy and on coming to know of the said fact the petitioner has taken prompt action by removing the said Sri.Hanumanth Reddy from the rolls of the petitioner-agency so that rest of the employees should not indulge in any such mischief any further. 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 28.3.2011 terminating with immediate effect the service agency of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order to the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad on 7.4.2011, who after considering the matter on merits, turned it down on 29.4.2011, but, partially modifying the order of Divisional Commercial Manager, Secunderabad, to the extent of directing refund of the security deposit and payment of other dues in accordance with clause 19 of the agreement, however, otherwise the order of termination of the service agency has been confirmed. Challenging the validity of these two orders the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri.R.Vijayanandan Reddy for the writ petitioner and Sri.Rajiv 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 more than 10 years and has a blemishless record all through. All due to a stray and solitary instance that too committed by an erring employee of the agency, too grave an order has been passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that imposition of a hefty penalty would produce the desired result instead of totally terminating the agency. Per contra, learned Standing 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 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 unauthorisedly collected by the service agency, for his 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 the 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 a 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 judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.5382 of 2010, dated 9.2.2011. 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 etc., 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 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. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Dt: 29-08-2011. ( NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16791 OF 2011 29TH August, 2011.