Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.12.2025
UOI & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh (CGSC), Ms.Ira Singh, Mr. Aryan Dhaka
Advs.
Through: None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 976 of 2005, titled Rajesh Bhutani v. Union Of India & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:
whatsoever. Past service rendered will, however, be tagged on to the service yet to be rendered and he will be entitled to benefit only to this limited extent. We hope that he will hereafter sure in his new term as a responsible employee, without giving room to any complaint.”
2. The respondent, in spite of service by way of publication, has not appeared and has therefore been proceeded ex parte.
3. The respondent, who was serving as a Mobile Booking Clerk (MBC) at New Delhi Railway Station, was issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 24.04.2001 which reads as under: “Shri Rajesh Bhutani, MBC/NDLS was found responsible for the undernoted serious irregularities/misconduct- During a preventive check conducted by the Vigilance it was noticed that a number of Green Pay Orders as mentioned At S. Nos.-1 to 22,24 to 27,29 to 33,36 to 51 & S.No.-54 in detail list were received back as undelivered in Claims Office/Refund Office. The said Pay Orders were not entered in the Register properly in the Refund Office. In Claims Office a stamp in token of receipt of these Pay Orders alongwith the date of receipt was affixed but, these Pay Orders were handed over to a unauthorised Khalasi for onward submission in Refund office. The staff of Claims/Refund Office connived with Shri. Rajesh Bhutani, MBC/NDLS and got these Pay Order's encashed pradulently by errasing the stamp and altering the station to which these were addressed causing a loss to Railway Revenue amounting to Rs.34.611/-, The Pay Orders refunded were not witnessed by any body and the same cases there were not having even the signatures of the Payee, Shri, Rajesh Bhutani failed to get the Payee's signature/Witness. Shri, Bhutani also failed to make entries of the pay Orders refunded in his duty in the Pay Order Register. maintained for the purpose to record the complete detail of Pay Orders on which the refund granted, and to obtain the signatures of the Payee in the Register. As required to embosed the Pay Orders as Paid on (Date), Station and CBS's signatures at the time of granting regund was not done by him. As per IRCM Vol-II para, 2168 & 2169 Pay Orders will be sent to the Payee and the station on which it is drawn will be advise seperately and while granting the refund the particulars on the Pay Orders should be compared with the intimation received directly from Refund office. If no such intimation has been received from Refund Office Shri, Bhutani has granted the refund of Pay Orders even without receipt of intimation without comparing and without verification of genuin-ness, He has failed to make entries of Pay Orders with the Carbon process and to submit one copy to Cashier alongwith the pay Orders as Cash Vouchers at the close of his shift and to make the entries of Pay Orders in the DTC Pook. By the above act of omision and commission, Shri, Rajesh Bhutani MBC/N Rly., New Delhi failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibi-ted lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant and thereby contravened the provision of Rule No 3.[1] (i), (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules,-1966.”
4. In the inquiry proceedings, the petitioners/department examined three witnesses. The respondent did not examine any witness and instead stated that he would rely upon the written statement of defence before the general examination. The Inquiry Officer considered the evidence in detail, including the defence version, and found the charges to be proved against the respondent.
5. The Inquiry Officer bifurcated the charges levelled against the respondent into six distinct charges as under:
by him in GPO register including signature of party
4. Failed to endorse that GPO paid on (date), stn. and CBS signature at time of granting refund.
5. Granted refund without receipt of advise, without comparing and without verification of genuineness.
6. Failed to make entries of GPOs with carbon process and to submit one copy to cashier alongwith GPOs at close of shift and to make entries of GPOs in DTC Book.”
6. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Inquiry Officer concluded that all six charges stood proved against the respondent.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a representation on receipt of notice from the Disciplinary Authority. The same was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Divisional Traffic Manager, who imposed upon the respondent the penalty of ‘removal from service’. The appeal filed thereagainst by the respondent was also dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority/Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager.
8. The respondent challenged the aforesaid orders by filing the above O.A., which, as noted hereinabove, has been allowed by the learned Tribunal.
9. While the learned Tribunal found that there was a grave suspicion of the respondent having acted not only in dereliction of his duties but also as a link in a chain attempting to exploit the ongoing system, the learned Tribunal, however, in our opinion, acted as an appellate authority and reappreciated the entire evidence led by the department before the Inquiry Officer to discover lacunae therein, and therefore set aside the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
10. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in departmental inquiries, allegations against an officer are not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but only on the test of preponderance of probabilities. The strict rules of evidence do not apply to such proceedings. In any event, while exercising powers of judicial review, the learned Tribunal cannot act as an appellate forum to reappreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions thereon.
11. As noted hereinabove, the allegations against the respondent stood proved by the petitioners by examining three witnesses, who deposed regarding the various acts and omissions of the respondent which resulted in a loss of Rs. 34,611/- to the department.
12. In view of the above, we find that the learned Tribunal erred in setting aside the inquiry proceedings and directing that the respondent be readmitted to duty.
13. The Impugned Order is accordingly set aside. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 03, 2025/prg/RM/ik