IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8827 OF 2005 Brij Kishor Shukla .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.V. Marne for the Petitioner. Mr.T.J. Pandian for the Respondents. CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 18TH JULY 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Marne in support of this petition and Mr.Pandian for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner was working as the Senior Booking Clerk in February 2001 when a trap was laid. A decoy passenger went to his booking window at Dadar to purchase the ticket for Varanasi. He gave an amount of Rs.300/-. The ticket was of Rs.219/- and, therefore, Rs.81/- were expected to be returned. Only Rs.71/- were returned. The decoy passenger brought this to the - 2 - notice of the booking clerk, but he said that he had returned the balance amount correctly. Thereafter he went back to the Vigilance Cell and narrated the incident. The incident was also witnessed by a shadow witness. Their statements were recorded. Thereafter the Petitioner was charged with three articles of misconduct. Firstly, that he had over charged the decoy passenger by Rs.10/-. Secondly, a shortage of Rs.22/- was detected in the railway cash. Thirdly, in his private cash, an excess of Rs.282/- was detected. 3. The Enquiry Officer held that Articles I and II were proved and Article III was partly proved. The Petitioner was directed to be compulsorily retired. It is material to note that by that time, the Petitioner had put in 27 years of service and by virtue of his compulsory retirement, he will get all his benefits for the service of 27 years that he had rendered. 4. The Petitioner carried an appeal which was dismissed so also the revision. Thereafter an application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. That also came to be dismissed and hence this petition. 5. Mr.Marne for the Petitioner submitted that this - 3 - is a case of no evidence. He took us to the deposition of the decoy witness. From the answer given by the decoy witness to Q.No.1 itself, it is very clear that as stated by him he received Rs.10/- less and immediately brought it to the notice of the Petitioner where the Petitioner maintained that he had given the balance correctly. That was the time when there was a rush for buying tickets and the shadow witness was at a distance of about 7-8 feet. Mr.Marne tried to emphasise the fact that the shadow witness had not seen the transaction very clearly. Be that as it may, this is a case where there were two versions, one of the Petitioner and the other of the decoy passenger. Coupled with that, the railway cash was found to be short of Rs.22/- whereas the personal cash of the Petitioner was found with an excess of Rs.282/-. As far as this excess amount is concerned, it was sought to be explained by pointing out that Rs.100/- were given to the Petitioner by another fellow employee, whereas the remaining amount was stated to be received from the cashier by way of coins. As far as this aspect is concerned, the Administrative Tribunal has clearly stated in para 11 of its order that this plea and support based on a letter from the Chief Booking Supervisor was taken only as a defence plea. The Tribunal has observed in para 11 that it has not been mentioned anywhere that the excess cash was found - 4 - in coins only. In the circumstances, this defence of the Petitioner was clearly an after-thought and, in our view, rightly rejected by all the authorities throughout. 6. It is a matter of integrity of an employee. With this kind of incident, the Railway Management imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. On a query to Mr.Marne, he took instructions from the Petitioner, who is present in Court, and he informs that in the year 1996-97 also there was one previous incident where a similar allegation was made and excess amount was found with the Petitioner and he was directed to be reverted from the position of Head Booking Clerk to that of Senior Booking Clerk. This being the position, since this was the second incident, in our view, there was nothing wrong in the Railway Administration imposing the punishment on the Petitioner. In our view, the case cannot be said to be of no evidence. It is a matter which is to be decided on probabilities and the Railway Administration has taken a view which is a possible view. It cannot be therefore called a perverse finding. In our view, the charges were duly established and have been upheld by giving concurrent finding in an appeal as well as in a revision and thereafter the Administrative Tribunal. Similarly, as far as the punishment is - 5 - concerned, in our view, the Railway Administration has been quite lenient in imposing the punishment whereby the Petitioner is not denied the benefits for his 27 years of service. We are informed that after the decision of the Tribunal, the Petitioner has been receiving the pension. There is no reason to interfere. Petition is dismissed. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)