Disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts; Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate authority.

A preventive check was conducted on Train No. 22811 on March 16, 2017, where two passengers were found traveling without tickets in Coach B/9.

The applicant, Amitav Mohanty, was on duty as a TTI for Coaches B/8, B/9, and B/10, and failed to mark berth No. 55 of B/9 as "not turned up" as per Commercial Circular No. 28/2012.

He allegedly altered the working chart by entering "NT" against seat No. 55 after it was blocked by the vigilance team.

Two tickets were subsequently regularized by collecting Rs. 12,660/-.

Departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 9 of the Railways Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, on June 23, 2017.

The applicant submitted a reply on July 7, 2017, claiming non-availability of a TTE Berth forced him to remain in the PC, thereby disabling timely verification, and that the Bedroll Attendant failed to inform him.

The Inquiry Officer (IO) held the allegations as proved in a report dated January 23, 2018.

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for 18 months with cumulative effect on March 9, 2018.

The applicant's subsequent mercy appeal on March 29, 2018, was rejected by the Appellate Authority (AA) on April 17, 2018.

His revision application on May 24, 2018, was also rejected by the Revisional Authority (RA) on June 14, 2018, who clarified that TTEs have the sole responsibility for detecting unauthorized passengers, and the duties of outsourced Coach Attendants and RPF do not absolve the TTE.

The applicant then filed this OA, alleging a perfunctory inquiry, bias of the IO, lack of reasoned orders from the AA and RA, and no action against other staff.

The respondents stated that the TTE has the sole duty to check unauthorized passengers, citing Chapter 5, Rules 522 and 523 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol.I.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed on the applicant are vitiated by procedural irregularities, bias of the Inquiry Officer, or lack of reasoned orders by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.

Whether the applicant's contention that the responsibility to detect unauthorized passengers also rests with Coach Attendants and RPF staff absolves him of his primary duty as a TTE.

The Tribunal applied the principles of judicial review regarding disciplinary proceedings as articulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in *B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749*, and *Union of India v. P Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610*, which limit judicial interference to cases where inquiries are inconsistent with natural justice, violate statutory rules, or findings are based on no evidence, but not to re-appreciate evidence or question the adequacy/reliability of evidence.

It also referenced Chapter 5, Rules 522 and 523 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol.I, which unequivocally assigns the duty of checking unauthorized passengers to Travelling Ticket Examiners (TTEs).

The principle that allegations of bias must be substantiated by concrete, credible evidence was drawn from *UCO Bank v. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 201*.

The Tribunal applied the established judicial review principles, noting that its scope is limited to reviewing the decision-making process, not acting as an appellate authority on facts.

The applicant's claim of IO bias was dismissed as a bald allegation, unsubstantiated by corroborative evidence and raised for the first time before the DA after the inquiry.

The Tribunal found that the IO's report was well-reasoned and prepared in accordance with rules, and the DA's order was a reasoned and speaking order, subsequently upheld by the AA and RA, thus refuting the applicant's claims of lack of reasoning.

The applicant's defense that the non-availability of a TTE berth prevented him from performing his duties, and that Coach Attendants and RPF were equally responsible, was rejected based on Chapter 5, Rules 522 and 523 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol.I, which unequivocally state that the TTE holds the sole responsibility for checking and detecting unauthorized passengers.

The respondents effectively demonstrated, and the Revisional Authority confirmed, that Coach Attendants are outsourced staff with different duties and their failure does not absolve the TTE.

The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings complied with natural justice and the punishment was commensurate with the offense.

The Tribunal found no illegality, irregularity, infirmity, or flaw in the decision-making process or the imposition of punishment, upholding the orders of the DA, AA, and RA.

The applicant's allegations of bias and procedural irregularities were rejected due to lack of evidence and the clear allocation of duties to the TTE as per railway rules.