The Railway ticket booking clerk, who was dismissed from service 26 years ago after he failed to return Rs 6 to a decoy railway passenger, while Rs 450 in cash was found in a cupboard directly behind his counter window, was denied relief by Bombay High Court that upheld his 2002 removal.
On August 30, 1997, while Railway ticketing clerk Rajesh Verma was working at Mumbai’s Kurla Terminus Junction, he failed a ‘decoy check’ when a Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable, posing as a passenger bought a train ticket to Ara in Bihar, which cost Rs 214.
The Constable gave a Rs 500 note to Verma, who was supposed to return Rs 286 in change, but he gave him Rs 280 back.
Following this, a vigilance team raided his counter and allegedly found Rs 58 short in his cashbox on the counter and also recovered Rs 450 stashed in a steel cupboard behind his counter, stashed to allegedly avoid detection of “overcharging passengers”.
At the time, Verma was barely two years into his Railway job.
He was dismissed from service on January 2002 following a departmental inquiry.
He approached the Bombay High Court in 2004 against Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that upheld his dismissal.
A bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sandeep Marne heard the matter and found no merit in Verma’s contentions, including one that the railways had violated procedures in the inquiry against him.
In its order, the court said it found “there is sufficient evidence available on record in support of charges”.
“Recovery of an amount of Rs 450 from the cupboard is not the solitary charge proved. The other grave charge of overcharging the decoy passenger is also proved in the inquiry by direct evidence,” the HC observed.
The order said that Varma did not dispute the fact that he did not return Rs 6 change to the decoy passenger and just stressed he did not return it due to a lack of change.
“If indeed that was the position, petitioner ought to have requested the decoy passenger to step aside and wait for return of the amount of Rs 6. However, both the decoy passenger as well as the independent witness did not hear the petitioner making such a request. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner had any intention of returning the amount of Rs 6 to the decoy passenger.,” it said further.
The Bench said that the disciplinary inquiry did not violate the principles of natural justice and Verma was given full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead his own evidence.
“The petitioner has unsuccessfully exhausted various departmental remedies of appeal, revision as well as mercy appeal, wherein correctness of the finding recorded in enquiry has been considered by various hierarchical officers who are conversant with working of railway staff. In fact, filing of a mercy appeal by the petitioner requesting appointment as a fresh entrant would indicate an implied admission of misconduct. This is yet another factor which would assume importance…,” the order said upholding the CAT judgment.
Comments
0 comment