it2025_00913 — Applicant herein, a Senior T.T.E. filed this petition questioning the reduction of the status of the Applicant to a lower post of Typist for a period of 8 years resulting in adverse effect on future pay and seniority. Tribunal after hearing both sides was of the view that the apt decision in this case at the present juncture is to allow the Revision Petition Authority to review the case as per rules and law

Applicant herein, a Senior T.T.E. filed this petition questioning the reduction of the status of the Applicant to a lower post of Typist for a period of 8 years resulting in adverse effect on future pay and seniority. Tribunal after hearing both sides was of the view that the apt decision in this case at the present juncture is to allow the Revision Petition Authority to review the case as per rules and law — The applicant was initially posted as a Typist but later changed his cadre to T.C. The Tribunal ruled that if the applicant wishes to challenge his punishment by being posted as a Typist while workin... — Facts: Applicant while working as Senior T.T.E. in Train No. 1028 was subjected to a vigilance check on 6-6-2008 in regard to allowing two passengers by allegedly demanding and accepting bribe of ₹ 250 to travel in S-2 sleeper coach. Applicant was suspended after a vigilance check on 11-6-2008 and a major charge-memo, dated 24-7-2008 was issued containing two charges. A major penalty charge-sheet, dated 24-7-2008 containing two articles of charges was issued and the Applicant was suspended which was revoked on 28-10-2008. An Inquiry Officer was appointed without giving the documents requested by the Applicant. Appointment of Inquiry Officer without giving the documents is in violation of Rule 9 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 (RSDA Rules). Inquiry Officer held that the charges are not proved. Taking cognizance of IO Report, Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 12-3-2010. The O.A. No. 272 of 2010 was filed on 12-3-2010 which was dismissed on 26-10-2010. Hence Applicant filed W.P. No. 10527 of 2010 before the High Court wherein an interim order of status was issued. The W.P. was disposed on 10-6-2014 to prefer an appeal and till the appeal is disposed of, Respondents were directed to maintain status quo. On appeal, the punishment was modified to that of reversion to the post of Typist with the Grade Pay of ₹ 1,900 for a period of 8 years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment, this OA is filed. Interim order was passed by the Tribunal of status quo in respect of impugned proceedings, dated 9-12-2014. Applicant filed OA on various grounds such as violation of Rules 3 (1)

(i)

(ii) (iii). Documents and other reasons against the charge-sheet were not supplied. Respondents filed their reply justifying the action of punishing the Applicant. Applicant also filed his rejoinder. Tribunal noted the dispute of imposition of penalty to a lower post with allied condition upon the Applicant. Vigilance check is done as a preventive measure to keep irregular and illegal activities under check. Provisions of Rule 704 relating to witness states that in case Gazetted Officers are not available for vigilance check, services of non-Gazetted staff can be utilized. The mute point is as to whether the witnesses enacted their responsibility independently. It is seen that depositions of witnesses is in favour of the Applicant and therefore, the charge of demanding and accepting the bribe was not proved. Respondents have dealt with the inquiry as is required under law. Tribunal cannot undertake a journey into the re-appreciation of evidence as held by Apex Court in the case of The State of Bihar v. Phulpari Kumari on 6th December, 2019, Civil Appeal No. 8782 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2019). Para. 6 of that case referred above is reproduced in this connection. It is not the case of the Applicant that he did not submit his response to the charge-sheet even though the documents required as asked for by Applicant is not given. When charge-sheet is served, it is the responsibility of the Respondents to supply the documents as a part of enquiry process. Therefore, Rule 9 of RSDA Rules has been violated or the decision of High Court in W.P. No. 15962 of 2001 relied upon by the Applicant in this regard is also violated. On analysis, it is seen that the Apex Court judgment of Ramachander v. Union of India relied upon by the Applicant, it would not be of much assistance to the Applicant. Moreover, any decision of Respondents, be the decision of Appellate Authority or charge violation of Rule 3 (1)

(i)

(ii)

(iii) which is not favourable to the Applicant cannot be termed as lack of application of mind.