MITIN BHARTI vs Divisional Railway Manager on 7 October 2026

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar Division, Izzatnagar.

3. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar.

4. Chief Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

5. Shri Ahtesham Khan, Inquiry Officer, Notice through Opposite party No. 3 (as the designation and other whereabouts are lying with opposite party no. 3). ..…..Respondents By Advocate: Shri B. B. Tripathi

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash orders dated 30.06.2016, 03.01.2017 and 31.05.2017 passed by opposite party no. 3, 2 and 1 respectively (contained in annexure no. 1, 2 and 3 to this O.A.).

(ii) The respondents may be directed to make difference of salary along with 12% interest thereon after quashing the punishment orders.

(iii) To pass such other orders which are found just fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To allow the original application with cost.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk at Kichha Railway Station, was proceeded against departmentally under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 with the issue of charge sheet dated 28.09.2015. There were two charges against the applicant. The first charge was that he was found having excess personal cash of Rs. 20 in his possession while the government money with him was in deficit of Rs. 2,620. The second charge was that the applicant prepared a Tatkal ticket without requisition slip, receipt of money and following the queue number. In the enquiry report dated 29.04.2016, both charges against the applicant were found proved. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction to a lower stage of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect on the applicant vide order dated 30.06.2016. The applicant’s appeal dated 13.08.2016 was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 14.01.2017 and his revision petition dated 27.02.2017 also came to be rejected by the Revising Authority vide order dated 31.05.2017. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s first contention is that the main prosecution witness (PW-1) Balbeer Singh Sachan deposed in the enquiry that there was shortage of Rs. 20 in private cash of the applicant while the charge is that Rs. 20 was found excess in private cash. His second contention is that the joint note dated 03.06.2015 was signed by him under threat from vigilance personnel. His third contention is that PW-3 (G C Pandey) deposed that requisition slip was found in the bunch. His fourth contention is that PW-4 (Mohan Singh) himself deposed that a girl standing outside the ticket counter no. 1 was shouting that her ticket had been snatched away. His fifth contention is that the defence witness (DW-1) Shivam deposed that he had submitted the requisition slip to the applicant on behalf of a friend and that he had told the applicant that he was placing the girl in the queue, but before he could make the payment the vigilance person snatched the ticket from the girl. His sixth contention is that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order imposing punishment at the diktat of Vigilance Department. His final contention is that by taking into account the previous punishments awarded to the applicant, the appellate authority has relied on extraneous material.

4. Per contra, the respondents contend that PW-2 (Shekhar Kumar) deposed that during the vigilance raid Rs. 20 was found in excess of the applicant’s personal cash and Rs. 2,620 was found short in government money at counter no. 1 where the applicant was working. They also contend that the applicant admitted to having made Tatkal ticket without reservation slip, ID and amount.

5. We have heard both the parties. 6.1 Perusal of the enquiry report shows that there were six documents, four prosecution witnesses and one defence witness. 6.2 In regard to the first charge of holding excess personal cash of Rs. 20 and deficit of Rs. 2,620 in government money, it is noted that PW-1 (Balbeer Singh Sachan, Vigilance Inspector) deposed that shortage of Rs. 20 was found in personal cash of the applicant, but he also deposed that currency in excess of the declared amount was found in the applicant’s purse which the applicant admitted. PW-2 (Shekhar Kumar, Vigilance Inspector) deposed that excess personal cash of Rs. 20 was found on the applicant. The enquiry officer observed that in view of deposition of PW-2, the joint note, and the statement dated 22.06.2015, the charge stood proved. To our understanding, the contradiction in deposition of PW-1 stands resolved when viewed with other evidence on record. The applicant’s contention that he signed documents under threat does not hold water in absence of supporting evidence. Considering the evidence on record, we cannot fault with the enquiry officer and the competent authorities in concluding that the first charge relating to excess personal cash of Rs. 20 and deficit of Rs. 2,620 in government money stood proved. 6.3 It is in regard to the finding in the departmental proceedings that the second charge was also proved that we are in disagreement. A critical element of the second charge is that the Tatkal ticket was prepared by the applicant without the requisition slip. Here, PW-3 (G C Pandey, Commercial Superintendent) deposed that when he checked the bundle of requisition slips after the departure of vigilance team, all requisition slips were found. It is observed that PW-3’s deposition has been ignored altogether by the enquiry officer in his analysis and conclusion. On the other hand, the enquiry officer has cast doubt on the girl’s statement and the deposition of DW-1 (Shivam). Considering that the enquiry officer and the competent authorities failed to take into account the deposition of PW-3, which is of direct relevance to the second charge, while recording their findings in respect of the second charge, such findings stand vitiated for not considering relevant evidence, in our opinion. 6.4 The applicant’s contention that disciplinary authority acted on the behest of Vigilance Department lacks credibility in the absence of supporting evidence. 6.5 In regard to the applicant’s contention that the appellate authority took into consideration extraneous material (of previous punishments meted out to the applicant), the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors vs Ex C Satpal Singh 2025 INSC 1056 are apposite:

“20. To properly understand the controversy in the light of question framed, it is necessary to examine the relevant judicial precedents, as discussed below. This Court in the case of India Marine Services Private Ltd. (supra), dealt with the case of punishment awarded to an employee in a similar situation, as follows: - “7. It is true that the last sentence suggests that the past record of Bose has also been taken into consideration. But it does not follow from this that that was the effective reason for dismissing him…” ….

23. Likewise, in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Ors. vs. Mohd. Taher Ali (2007) 8 SCC 656 where the respondent who was employed as police constable was imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement on the account of unauthorized absenteeism from election duty, this Court had held that: - “5. ….In our opinion there can be no hard-and-fast rule that merely because the earlier misconduct has not been mentioned in the charge- sheet it cannot be taken into consideration by the punishing authority. Consideration of the earlier misconduct is often [necessary] only to reinforce the opinion of the said authority.” (emphasis supplied) In the case at hand, the appellate authority, in the order dated 03.01.2017, after upholding the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, mentioned in the last sentence that the applicant had been penalised on four occasions earlier. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellate authority has effectively relied on previous punishments to turn down the applicant’s appeal; rather, it would be a case where the appellate authority has reaffirmed its opinion by pointing out earlier instances of punishments awarded to the applicant. In view of this position, this ground advanced by the applicant has no merit. 6.6 In conclusion, while there is no reason for interference of this Tribunal in regard to the finding in the departmental proceedings pertaining to the first charge, the finding in respect of the second charge stands vitiated for failure to consider the relevant evidence (deposition of PW-3 regarding the requisition slip). Thus, it is observed that only the first charge is proved and that the shortfall in cash was deposited by the applicant subsequently.

Consequently, the punishment by way of major penalty imposed on the applicant is grossly disproportionate, in our considered view.

7.1 In view of the forgoing, this OA is allowed partly and the order dated 30.06.2016 of the disciplinary authority, order dated 03.01.2017 of the appellate authority and order dated 31.05.2017 of the Revising Authority are quashed and set aside. The respondents/competent authority are directed to consider only the first charge as proved and further consider imposing such minor penalty as they deem appropriate on the applicant and settle his resultant dues, without interest, within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A) Member (J)

Vidya

Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.10.15 16:19:22 +05'30'