Follow rules in trap cases: Central Administrative Tribunal

PATNA: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna bench, on Monday held that if rules were not followed in a trap case, it would be treated as illegal.
A division bench of CAT comprising judicial member UrmitaDatta Sen and administrative member A E Ahmad quoted Supreme Court and CAT's principal bench rulings in this regard and set aside the order of a revision authority (divisional operating manager of N-E Railway, Varanasi) who compulsorily retired the applicant, Dilip Kumar Sinha, an assistant station master of Sidhwalia railway station, Gopalganj.
The division bench directed the N-E Railway, to reinstate the services of the applicant forthwith. The vigilance team of the railway comprising its inspectors and two khalasis, who acted as decoy, had laid a trap on the applicant following the allegation that he had charged the passengers Rs 482, instead of Rs 444, for tickets at the railway station and extracted Rs 38 extra from them.
The applicant's counsel, M P Dixit, submitted that the trap was laid in violation of rules under the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual, which said that the gazetted officers should be from other department and act as independent witnesses to sign a joint note, see the transaction of money and hear the conversation between the decoy and the delinquent (in this case the applicant). He added that the chief vigilance officer and the two khalasis were of the same department and in the same team that laid the trap. So, there was no independent witness of the trap case.
The applicant's counsel added that the general manager, vigilance, had directed the disciplinary authority and appellate authority to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the applicant and so, such order was passed on the dictate of the GM, vigilance.
The division bench held that the action taken by the railway vigilance officials on the basis of decoy, who were khalasis, was invalid. The court allowed the plea of the applicant that the khalasis were lower in rank than the applicant's rank and so they could not be termed as independent witnesses.