Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sarvjeet Chhotelal Tiwari, was a Booking Clerk with the Central Railway. On 26/11/1999, he was issued a charge-sheet alleging two charges: (1) overcharging a decoy passenger by Rs.2, and (2) a cash shortage of Rs.122 in the railway cash. The petitioner denied the charges, explaining that the decoy passenger had given currency notes of Rs.100 and Rs.50, and he asked the passenger to wait for change, but the passenger left. An inquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 30/11/2000. The petitioner was given a copy of the report and submitted his explanation on 28/05/2001. The Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 18/07/2001, imposed the major penalty of removal from service with effect from 30/07/2001. The petitioner's appeal was rejected on 18/09/2001, and his revision petition was also rejected on 27/12/2001. He then filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed on 30/09/2004. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition. The court considered the proportionality of the punishment. It noted that the charges were of a trivial nature involving very small amounts. The court held that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The court set aside the order of removal and the CAT judgment, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. The court also directed that the petitioner be treated as being on leave without pay for the said period.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Proportionality of Punishment - Minor Misconduct - Overcharging by Rs.2 and cash shortage of Rs.122 - The petitioner, a Booking Clerk, was charged with overcharging a decoy passenger by Rs.2 and a cash shortage of Rs.122 in railway cash. The disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The court held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, considering the trivial nature of the charges and the petitioner's long service. The court set aside the removal and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period of absence. (Paras 1-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of compulsory removal from service for the charges of overcharging a decoy passenger by Rs.2 and cash shortage of Rs.122 is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of removal dated 27/12/2001 and the CAT judgment dated 30/09/2004. Directed respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period from removal to reinstatement, treating the period as leave without pay.
Law Points
- Proportionality of punishment
- judicial review of disciplinary proceedings
- minor misconduct
- shockingly disproportionate punishment
- Railway Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
- 1968
