Court Case On Dar Appm
Court Case On Dar Appm
APPM/N.A.I.R
from
duty
2
appeal
5
6
case
The
Honble
Tribunal
vide
orders
dated
Example- railway
vigilance case
Dr. R.K. Verma,
Son Of Sri Prem Shanker Verma
vs
Union Of India,
Through General Manager
on 8 October, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Vigilance manual
Para 704-705 of vigilance manual
(now para 306and 307 of 2006) which says that
: (a) two Gazetted Officers from Railways are to
act as independent witnesses as far as
possible
(b) The independent witnesses must hear the
conversation, which should establish that the
money
was
being
passed
as
illegal
gratification to meet the defence.
(c) The transaction should be within the sight
and hearing of two independent witnesses.-
(d)
There should be an opportunity to catch the
culprit red-handed immediately after passing of
the illegal gratification so that the accused may
not be able to dispose it of.
employees
and
of
other
COURT OBSERVATION
There is no mention about money having
been demanded.
Again, the money was not paid to the
applicant but to one Shri Om Prakash,
Safaiwala.
Shri Arvind Kumar had not stated that he
had seen Om Prakash handing over the
money to the applicant i.e.DMO
Thus, the spinal requirement of two
Gazetted Officers and their actual hearing of
demanding and accepting the money by the
applicant is conspicuously missing in this
case.
impugned
order
dated
25-08-2009
is
salary.
Respondents are directed to pass suitable
he
produced
Government
cash
of
Contention of applicant
punishment (penalty of reduction to two lower stage in same time
that
the
same
are
illegal,
arbitrary
and
against
the
Allegation by applicant
The impugned charge sheet being
based
on
vigilance
trap,
the
the
Indian
Railway
Vigilance
The said shortage of Rs.9/- (the total cash was Rs.6599/whereas the sale proceeds of the tickets as per DTC Books
Court Observation
inMoni Shanker
vs. Union of India and Another,(2008 (1)
AJW 479), the Apex Court had an occasion
to consider again the legal status of Paras
704 and 705 wherein an extensive
reference was made to the judgment in G.
Ratnams case (supra) also. After elaborate
discussion the Apex Court held as under:
A departmental instruction cannot totally
be ignored.
of
this
the
applicant
counsels
DECISION
In view of the above discussion, we
are not inclined to interfere in this
case and the OA is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
**************************************
UNUTHORISED ABSENCE
Andhra High Court
WRIT PETITION No.19350 of 2012
Union of India,
Rep. by The General Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad
vs
Debashish Pal
Fact of case
On
the
other
hand
the
learned
counsel
for
the
further
contended
that
the
respondent
while
Krushnakant
B.
Parmar
Vs.
Union
of
India
and
Mitras case
Kolkata High Court
Union of India and Ors.
Vs
Mrs. Binita Mitra
on 4 June, 2013
W.P.C.T. 137 of 2013
In
the
present
case,
an
interesting question has been
raised whether an authority can
pass the order of punishment
without hearing the employee
concerned after the matter being
referred by another authority,
who had actually heard the said
employee.
and Shri Arun Bhor RPF Constable No. 6453, Mulund were utilized
as decoy passenger and independent witness respectively.
3 Accordingly TCM-I dated 13.05.03 was prepared and the decoy
passenger was handed over Rs. 809/- (Rs. 500x1, Rs. 100x3, Coins
Rs. 5x1, Rs. 1x4) and the decoy passenger was instructed to
purchase three II M/E tickets ex Dadar to Jaunpur and the
independent witness was instructed to witness the transaction
taking place between the decoy passenger and the booking clerk
and also to listen to the conversation taking place between them,
if any.
Court observation
On the basis of the discussion above,
it has to be held that the order of
punishment
imposed
upon
the
applicant
was
not
authority
competent to issue the same.
Thus, the penalty being imposed by
an incompetent officer is illegal and
without any jurisdiction.
Para 704 d
--- The witnesses
selected should be responsible
witnesses who have not appeared as
witnesses in earlier cases of the
Department or the police and are
men of status, considering the status
of the accused. It is safer to take
witnesses who are government
employees
and
of
other
departments.