Generating Tatkal Tickets For Out-Of-Turn Passengers Without Collecting Fare Amounts To Misconduct Under Railway Service Conduct Rules: Madras High Court
Safiya Malik
The Madras High Court Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that a railway employee's act of generating Tatkal tickets for passengers who were not standing in the queue, without collecting the ticket fare, amounted to misconduct under the Railway Service Conduct Rules. The court found that the employee had collected reservation forms before the start of his duty and processed them outside the counter, acting at the behest of third parties and bypassing queue norms. Accordingly, the court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the penalty, though with a reduced punishment period of three years.
The writ petition was filed by the Railway authorities seeking to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had set aside disciplinary proceedings initiated against a railway employee. The employee, appointed as an Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk in 2006, was subjected to a preventive check on 08.01.2020 following information that certain clerks were accepting multiple reservation applications from touts and generating tickets overlooking passengers in the queue.
During inspection, he was found to have accepted eight reservation applications from a single person and generated eight Tatkal tickets without collecting the corresponding fare, resulting in a shortage of Rs.18,051/-. A charge memo was issued alleging contravention of the Railway Service Conduct Rules. After enquiry, punishment of reduction of pay in two stages for 40 months was imposed, later modified in appeal to reduction by two stages for six years. The Tribunal set aside the proceedings and remitted the matter for fresh charge sheet, leading to the present writ petition.
The Court observed, “The first respondent had been issued with a charge memo based upon a surprise inspection indicating that the first respondent had accepted reservation forms from a third party who was not standing in the queue and had generated tickets based upon such reservation forms, however without collecting the value of the tickets.”
It recorded, “Even before the enquiry authority, it was the case of the first respondent that accepting more number of reservation forms would not amount to a misconduct and also that such tickets were only generated and not issued.”
The Bench further noted, “It is also not his case that for the eight reservation forms were submitted by the passengers, whose stood in the queue.”
On the sequence of events, the Court stated, “These admitted facts would indicate that the first respondent had generated tickets based on reservation forms without being handed over to him across the counter and that such reservation forms had been collected by him in advance before the start of his duty at 8.00 am.” It added, “It would only mean that he had at the behest of some individuals and violated the norms for issuance of tickets.”
Regarding evidentiary standard, the Court observed, “It is the service law jurisprudence that the alleged delinquency need not be proved by strict proof of evidence and that it is enough that such delinquency could be driven by probabilities of the case.”
On the finding of misconduct, the Bench recorded, “From the facts of the case, we are of the view that in all probabilities, the delinquency committed by the first respondent stands proved.” It further stated, “We also do not find any procedural violations to hold that the disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated.”
On proportionality of punishment, the Court observed, “For the delinquency committed by the first respondent which has been proved in all probabilities, we deem fit that the nature of modified punishment as imposed by the Appellate Authority could be sustained with the modification only in respect of the period alone.”
The Court directed, “For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition stands allowed and impugned order is set aside and the punishment as imposed by the Appellate Authority with the modification as indicated above, shall stand imposed on the first respondent.”
“Reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.10410/- to Rs.9640/- for three years from the date of imposition of penalty, after which, the seniority, Grade and Pay will be restored to Rs.10,410/- + normal increments due during the punishment period, the Grade Pay remains constant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. A.R. Sakthivel
For the Respondents: Mr. L. Chandrakumar;
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. B. Shankar Kumar
Case Number: Writ Petition No.22359 of 2024
Bench: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu
