Dismissed¶21

Union of India and Ors. v. Nikhil Ranjan Basu

Calcutta HC25 Sept 2024WP.CT/262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Excess Fair Ticket (EFT) loss recovery; recovery from employee salary; clause VI of memo dated 23rd January, 2007; Rule 229 Indian Railway Commercial Manual Volume I (IRCM); Rs. 82,156 EFT loss; Rs. 10,954 salary debit; minor penalty chargesheet findings no nexus with actual loss; suspicion cannot be substitute for proof; loss beyond control of employee; OA 898 of 2023 Tribunal order dated 12.05.2023; WPCT 262 of 2023; Union of India & Ors. vs Nikhil Ranjan Basu; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶21

Union of India and Ors. Vs Nikhil Ranjan Basu — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery of the loss assessed on account of the lost Excess Fair Ticket (EFT) could be ordered from the employee's salary in terms of clause VI of the memo dated 23rd January, 2007, as urged by the petitioners. +2 more

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Under Rule 229 of the IRCM, an enquiry is to be made to determine the cause of loss, and the amount of loss is recoverable from the railway servant held responsible only where it is established that the ticket in question was actually sold and the money lost to the railway.

¶16

Key takeaways

In the instant case the petitioners failed to establish that the tickets were sold by the respondent and the money was lost to the railways; the loss was beyond the control of the respondent; and suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute for proof.ratio¶18
The disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent by a minor penalty chargesheet produced findings that have no nexus with the alleged actual loss.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 12th May, 2023 of the learned Tribunal in OA 898 of 2023, concerning recovery of Rs. 82,156/- assessed as loss of an original Excess Fair Ticket (EFT) lost on 6th June, 2016. Petitioners argued, relying on clause VI of the memo dated 23rd January, 2007, that recovery of assessed loss could be ordered from the employee's salary irrespective of a separate disciplinary proceeding, and that the Tribunal erred in treating the enquiry committee's ascertainment of loss as presumptive. The respondent countered under Rule 229 of the IRCM that no guilt beyond reasonable doubt was established, that the loss was immediately reported to police, and that no determination existed that the loss was directly attributable to him. The Court held that Rule 229 permits recovery only upon establishment that the ticket was actually sold and the money lost to the railway; the petitioners failed to establish this, the loss being beyond the respondent's control, and suspicion, howsoever high, cannot substitute for proof. Findings in the minor-penalty disciplinary proceeding had no nexus with the actual loss. Finding no infirmity or error in the impugned order, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

12 25.09.2024 Ct. No. 11 rrc

¶2

WPCT 262 of 2023 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Basu)

¶3

Mr. Soumak Bera Ms. Tanusree Ghosh ….. For the petitioners Mr. Prasenjit Burman Ms. Payel Koley …… For the respondent

¶4

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

¶5

The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 12^th May, 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being OA 898 of 2023.

¶6

Mr. Bera, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the rules which were not applicable towards determination of a loss pertaining to Excess Fair Ticket (in short, EFT). The impugned order was passed being oblivious of the memo dated 23^rd January, 2007 wherein under clause VI it has been specifically stated that recovery of loss assessed and advised may be ordered by the Divisional office from the salary of the employee and that initiation of a separate disciplinary proceeding would have no bearing on the recovery of loss from the employee.

¶7

He argues that the learned Tribunal erred in law in arriving at a finding that ascertainment of loss by the competent enquiry committee was presumptive in nature

¶8

¶9

though the enquiry report would reveal that the loss of original EFT was quantified to be Rs.82,156/-. Such loss of EFT cannot be equated with a loss of tickets as the latter is a journey ticket with fare established on the face of the ticket.

¶10

He contends that indisputably there was a loss of EFT. The error sheet dated 12^th August, 2016 of Rs.82,156/- was issued by the competent authority being the Traffic Accounts office. The enquiry was conducted by a duly constituted enquiry committee upon granting adequate scope to the respondent to defend himself. Such arguments, as advanced before the learned Tribunal, were glossed over and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

¶11

Mr. Burman, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bera and drawing our attention to the enquiry report as well as the provisions of the Indian Railway, Commercial Manual, Volume I (in short, IRCM), submits that no guilt beyond any reasonable doubt was established against the respondent. It is not a case that the fare of the tickets was misappropriated by the respondent moreso when the loss of such EFT was immediately reported by lodging a complaint before the police authorities. In the midst of the proceedings, the petitioners had debited an amount of Rs. 10,954/- from the salary of the respondent.

¶12

¶13

Drawing the attention of the provisions of Rule 229 of IRCM, Mr. Burman argues that the petitioners had no jurisdiction to direct recovery of any amount pertaining to such EFT inasmuch as there was no assessment and determination to the effect that the loss was directly attributable to the respondent culminating in deprivation of the actual fare to the railways. In the event the loss of EFT was due to fire, dacoity, floods etc., i.e, circumstances beyond the control of an employee, jurisdiction stands conferred upon the railways to write of even an actual loss.

¶14

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶15

Indisputably, the alleged incident occurred on 6^th June, 2016. A complaint to that effect was immediately lodged by the respondent on the selfsame date. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent by a minor penalty chargesheet and the findings in the said proceeding have no nexus with the alleged actual loss.

¶16

Rule 229 of the IRCM specifically provides that ‘an enquiry will be made to determine the cause of loss and in the case it is established that the ticket in question was actually sold and the money lost to the railway the amount of loss will be recovered from the railway servant held responsible’. In the instant case, the petitioners failed to establish the tickets were sold by the respondent and the

¶17

¶18

money was lost to the railways. The loss was beyond the control of the respondent. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute for proof.

¶19

In the said conspectus, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and

¶20

we do not find any error in the order impugned.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶23

All parties shall act on the service copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶24

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Union of India and Ors. v. Nikhil Ranjan Basu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Nikhil Ranjan Basu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Ors. Vs Dr Sanjay Ketan Sarkar

Afroja Begum Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mrityunjoy Chaulia Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Amitava Chakraborty & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Tapan Kumar Mahaptra Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jagannath Hansda Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.