1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2880 OF 2003 Iqbal Ahmed Qutubuddin Bhilwade .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Ramesh Rammurthy for the Petitioner. Mr.T.J.Pandian for the Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th August, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.180 of 2002. The brief facts which are relevant are that at the relevant time the petitioner was working as senior Ticket Collector at the Kurla Station. A chargesheet was served on him levelling two charges. The first charge was that he had extorted 36 Oman Riyals and Rs.100/- from a passenger at Kurla Station and the second charge was that he had left his jurisdiction of duty during duty hours and was found at Kurla Terminus by the Vigilance Team. The 2 departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his report exonerating the petitioner from both the charges. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings and initially imposed penalty of reversion. That penalty was modified by the Appellate Authority but the Revisional Authority by order dated 3.11.2000 set aside the order imposing penalty because the memo of disagreement was not served on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority before imposing the punishment. The Revisional Authority remanded the proceedings back to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority pursusnt to the remand order served the memo of disagreement, considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and passed a speaking order imposing punishment of removal from service vide its order dated 20th June, 2001. Appeal and the revision filed against that order by the petitioner were dismissed. Hence the petitioner filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which has been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its detailed order dated 28th August, 2003. The Central Administrative Tribunal 3 dismissed the original application. Present petition is directed against that order. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the memo of disagreement served by the Disciplinary Authority gave reasons for disagreement only in relation to Charge No.1, the punishment was however imposed considering both the charges. He also submitted that the charges have not been proved against the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the punishment has been imposed on the petitioner in breach of the principles of natural justice and therefore the matter should be remanded back. 3. The articles of charges read as under:- Article-I : He extorted 36 Oman Riyals and Rs.100/- from a passenger. Article-II : He left his jurisdiction of duty during his duty hours and 4 was found at CLA (T) by the Vigilance Team. Even accepting the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the memo of disagreement gave reasons for disagreement in relation to Charge No.1 only and therefore only that charge can be considered, in our opinion if Charge No.1 is held to be proved it is enough to justify the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a public servant who comes in direct contacts with the members of public. The allegation against the petitioner was of extortion of money from a foreigner. The defence of the petitioner was that 36 Oman Riyals and Rs.100/- were found lying at Kurla Station where the petitioner was on duty. The passengers there told him that, that money had been dropped by the foreigner. According to the petitioner, though there is a ‘Lost Property Box’ available at Kurla Station, he did not deposit the money in that box which is the usual procedure, but he proceeded to Kurla Terminus where he knew that that passenger had gone, to return money to that passenger. This defence of the petitioner is incapable of being 5 accepted. 4. It was the case of the department that the complaint was received on telephone by the Vigilance Team that the petitioner snatched money from the foreigner. Acting on that complaint, the Vigilance Team contacted the foreigner who had made the complaint. The Vigilance Team then went to Kurla Terminus because the foreigner told them that he had seen the petitioner in the office of the Head Ticket Collector. In the office of the Head Ticket Collecor, the petitioner was identified by the foreigner passenger and when the petitioner was told about the complaint of the foreigner, the petitioner took out money i.e.36 Riyals and Rs.100/-and handed it over to the Vigilance Team. The entire incident is narrated by Shri.S.S.Clifton who has been examined as witness. The answer given by the witness reads as under:- “On 27.7.98 at about 13.00 hours, there was telephonic complaint in the Vigilance Department. The complainant, Shri.P.Yeshudas complained that his 34 Oman Riyals and a GC note of Rs.100/- have been extorted by one TC at Kurla Station. The Vigilance team asked him to meet at a particular point from where he was calling. 6 On reaching Kurla (T) at about 14.15 hours, the complainant was found there. The Vigilance team took him to the Head T.C.’s office and asked him to bring the said TC. After some time, Shri.P.Yeshudas entered the Head T.C.’s office alongwith Shri.Iqbal Q.Bhilwade and identified him as a person who extorted 34 Oman Riyals and Rs.100/- from him. Shri.Iqbal, after being made to understand about 15 minutes, handed over the above said amount to the Vigilance team in the Head T.C.’s office. The same amount was returned to the complainant, after preparing the necessary joint notes. On verification it was found that Shri.Iqbal Q.Bhilwade, Sr.TC working at Kurla Station and he left his jurisdiction of duty and was found at Kurla (T) Station by the Vigilance team. I have gone through the relied upon documents and confirm that they are the same.” 5. It is clear from what is quoted above that though the petitioner was supposed to be at Kurla Station, he was found at Kurla Terminus which is about one kilometer away from the Kurla Station. He was not also found searching the passenger to whom according to him the money was to be handed over, but he was found in Head T.C.’s office. Perusal of the cross-examination of this witness conducted by the petitioner shows that there is no cross examination of the witness either on the point that the petitioner was found in Head T.C.’s office at Kurla Terminus or that the money was handed over by the petitioner to the Vigilance Team. In our opinion, if the petitioner had gone to Kurla Terminus to search for the passenger to hand over the 7 money to him, the petitioner should not have been in Head T.C.’s office. He should have been found searching for the passenger at Kurla Terminus. In any case, on his finding the passenger at the Head T.C.’s office, atleast, the first thing that the petitioner should have done is that he should have immediately handed over the money to that passenger. The petitioner should not have waited for the Vigilance Team to ask him to take out money and hand it over to the Vigilance Team. Perusal of the deposition of this witness shows that there is not even a suggestion made by this witness that the petitioner on seeing the foreigner passenger tried to hand over the money to him. We find that when admittedly the facility of ‘Lost Property Box’ was available at Kurla Station the petitioner had no reason to leave his duty and run after the passenger to hand over the money to him. What is further pertinent to be noted is that the petitioner did not see the passenger dropping the money. The petitioner reached the conclusion that the money belongs to foreigner only because some other passengers told him that money was dropped by the foreigner passenger and immediately according to the petitioner he accepted 8 that version of the other passengers and ran after that passenger to hand over money at the place about one kilometer away from his place of duty. In our opinion the explanation given by the petitioner is incapable of being accepted by any prudent man. The only conclusion that is possible on the basis of material on record is that the petitioner had extorted money from the foreigner passenger. In our opinion, considering that the petitioner is a public servant who comes in direct contacts with the members of public, the minimum that should have been done is that he should have been removed from service. That is what has been done and therefore, in our opinion, this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition fails. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)