WPC 3850/2011 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3850/2011 Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners Through Mr. R.L. Dhawan, Advocate. VERSUS K.S. Parmar …..Respondent Through CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ORDER % 31.05.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J. In the present writ petition, the assail is to the order dated 3rd February, 2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (tribunal, for short) allowing O.A. No. 2201/2010, filed by the respondent. Tribunal has quashed the order dated 12th January, 2009 passed by the revisionary authority enhancing the WPC 3850/2011 Page 2 of 5 punishment to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefit and restored the original penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, and confirmed by the appellate authority, of reversion to grade of Rs.3200- 4900 and fixing the pay of the respondent at Rs.3200/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. 2. The respondent, K.S. Parmar, was proceeded departmentally and the aforesaid punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21st November, 2006 and confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 7th April, 2007. The respondent thereafter filed a revision petition hoping for reduction in penalty but the revisionary authority vide order dated 12th January, 2009, enhanced the punishment to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. 3. The respondent was working as a Head-clerk at Belan Ganj, Agra under North Central Railway. A vigilance check was organized on 27th November, 2003 and thereafter a chargesheet was issued on 26th February, 2004 alleging that the respondent had demanded and accepted Rs.10/- over and above the actual fare from a passenger. The enquiry officer in his report partly upheld the said charge. He held that WPC 3850/2011 Page 3 of 5 the demand was not proved but the respondent had retained the said amount of Rs.10/- by overcharging for personal gain. The case of the petitioner was that the decoy passenger had purchased a ticket for Rs.140/- and had paid Rs.150/-. The respondent had set apart the extra Rupees 10 note and this was not refunded. The case, in defence, put up by the respondent was that before he could take action to return Rs.10/-, the passenger had left and the vigilance staff had closed the window. The respondent had also relied upon the cash check memo prepared contemporaneously at that time as per which only Rs.4/- was found to be in excess in cash and the balance amount had tallied. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded in the inquiry report that the respondent had acted malafidely in not returning Rs.10/- and accordingly awarded aforesaid punishment of reversion to grade of Rs.3200-4900 and fixing the pay of the respondent at Rs.3200/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority had upheld the said punishment. 4. The revisionary authority rejected the argument of the respondent that the passenger had left the counter before he could WPC 3850/2011 Page 4 of 5 return Rs.10/-, holding, inter-alia, that the same should have been returned along with the ticket itself. It was observed that a stern view was required to be taken in the matter. 5. The tribunal examined the said aspect and held that under Section 25(2) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the General Manager could suo motu enhance the punishment within six months. In the present case, the revisionary authority had not exercised the suo motu power within six months. Enhancement of punishment in the present case was on the revision filed by the respondent. It was noticed that the revisionary authority had not dealt with the contention of the respondent that only Rs.4/- was found to be in excess after calculating the cash available at the counter. What is also noticeable is the fact that the revisionary authority, in his order, has observed that the enquiry officer had given a finding that alleged demand by the respondent was not proved but the said finding was diluted by the revisionary authority observing that this did not effect the gravity of the misconduct. The tribunal observed that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was adequate and enhancement was grossly WPC 3850/2011 Page 5 of 5 disproportionate. It may be again noted that the inquiry officer has held that the charge of demand of Rs.10/- was not proved and the said finding was not disturbed but accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is thus dismissed. In the facts of the case, there will be no orders as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE May 31, 2011 Kkb/NA