Pargat Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

2. On 19.08.2010 the petitioneir was on duty as Head Train Ticket Examiner(TTE)on Train No.2013(NDLS- ASR Shatabdi Express) when a preventive check was conducted by the Vigilance Team.One ticketless passenger wasfound travelling in Coach No.8 SeatNo.54. Subsequently, Charge memorandum dated 18.02.2011 was issued to which the petitioner had pleaded not guilty. TheInquiry Officer in his report dated 30.09.2011 held that the charges were proved. The Inquiry report was made available, and the petitioner filed his representation against the same. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.11.2011 imposed the penalty of reduction in rank/ grade to the next lower pay band for a period of two years with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.01.2012..The revision petition has also been dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Surender Singh, the Inquiry Officer, was from the Vigilance department. Thus, principles of natural justice stand violated and have vitiated the inquiry report. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of a J Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C)702/2015 tilted Union of India Vs. Gyan DevPrasad decided on 06.08.2015.

6. The aforesaid contention has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. In the present case, there was evidence by way of the statement of Gurcharan Singh who was working as Chief Ticket Inspector on the same train. Gurcharan Singh had deposed as PW-1 before the Inquiry Officer and accepted and confirmed his signatures WP(C)No.6952/2015 Page2of[5] lo on Annexure P-1 and P-2. Annexure P-1 is a cash cheque memo No. 112/2002 and Annexure P-2 is the statement ofpetitioner- Pargat Singh which was made to the Vigilance team in response to the questions which were puttothe petitionerregardingthe occupation of seat No.54 in Coach No. 8 by the tickets less traveller. This contemperous statement by the petitioner is a vital and compelli'^g evidence.

7. In fact,the petitioner in their petition and revision petition had stated that the passenger in question had boarded the train at the first stoppage after New Delhi. The petitioner, as an alibi, had submitted thatsince he was managing C-5to C-8,the ticketless passenger might have occupied the seat withoutinforming him,fmding it to be vacant. The preventive check had taken place near Sarhand(Ludhiana)whiph is about 03 hours from Delhi by train. The Tribunal has rightly held in the present case that the appointment of Surender Singh as an inquiry officer did not vitiate the inquiiy. Admittedly, Surender Singh did not have personal knowledge as to the vigilance check.He was nota member ofthe checking squad. We,have also examined the decision ofthe Division Bench ofthis court in the case of Gyan Dev Prasad(supra) and the same is distinguishable. In this case, it has been observed that as the disciplinary proceedings were not fair. Reference was made to Union of India Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon 2009(2)see 541,where the ehiefofthe Vigilance Department had acted as an Inquiry Officer after a raid was conducted by the Vigilance Department.

8. The second contention raised bythe counsel for the petitioner is \VP(C)No.6952/2015 Page 3of[5] // that the orders ofthe Appellate Authority dated 11.01.2012 and the Revisionary Authority dated 27.09.2012 are non speaking and non reasoning orders. We would not acceptthis contention.The Appellate Authority while disposing of the appeal has specifically referred to the statement of the petitioner dated 10.08.2010 i.e. Annexure P-2 wherein he had accepted that one withoutticketpassenger was sitting in the Coach under his charge. The Appellate Authority rejected the contention that the petitioner was innocent and pointed out that the disciplinary authority had covered other points raised by the petitioner. The order passed by the Appellate Authority indicates the reasons and the ground why the appeal was dismissed. The Revision Authority has stated that it was proved beyond doubt that one passenger was detected to be travelling without ticket in Seat No.54 in Coach No.8. Further,the petitioner had not shown"Not-tum up" forthe passenger who wassupposed to have travelled on SeatNo.54. 'S - These ordersneed not as detailed as the charge sheet and the Inquiry Officer's report. The appellate orders can rely and refer to the order and reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority. The order by the first Appellate Authority and the order passed on the revision petition are not non-speaking orders. We would not set aside these orders,on this ground.

9. The petitioner himself has accepted that one passenger was found travelling without a ticket,seated in AC Chair Car Seat No.54, Coach No. 8 and the petitioner was in charge ofthe said coach and was responsible for ensuring thatthe passengers travelling had tickets forthejourney. The petitioner had notrecorded"Not-tum up"forthe WP(C)No.6952/2015 Page4of[5] passenger, who had booked the ticket but had not travelled. In these circumstances,inference is obvious.

10. In view ofthe aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the writpetition and therefore,the same is dismissed.There will be no order as to costs. ' I t ^ SANJIV KHANNA,J P CHANDfeRSHEKHAR,J