S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent at the relevant point of time was working as ticket Collector/sleeper Depot at Bangalore city Railway Station. On 20-6-1995 he submitted a report to the railway police complaining loss of his briefcase containing among other things the following cash value books of Southern Railway, Bangalore Division as follows :- (a) Local Excess Fare Ticket Book No. 635950 to 635999; (b) Foreign EFT book 191205 to 191299; (c) Rs,10/- coupon book Nos. 73081 -099 and 1425550 and 551; (d) Rs,15/-coupon book Nos. 18 to 941 to 949; (e) Used Local EFT book 780350 to 790399; (f) Foreign DPF Book; (g) Lower Class Certificate Book; (h) Rough Journal Book and other personal belongings. The department having conducted enquiry envisaged under rule 229 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Rules (for short 'rules') directed recovery of the amount of loss occasioned on account of the loss of the tickets valued at Rs. 35,611/- from the salary of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said action, on an earlier occasion, the respondent had instituted original Application No. 14 of 1999 before the central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore bench, Bangalore, (for short the Tribunal' ). The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal with the following directions-"for the above reasons, this application is allowed in part directing the competent authority to hold an enquiry as contemplated under para 229 of the IRCM with notice to the applicant and if on such enquiry, it is found that the tickets in question were not actually sold and no loss has been occasioned to the Railways or if any tickets have been sold and the applicant is found not responsible for the same or he is not in any way responsible for the loss occasioned to the Railway, it has to refund the amount recovered from him or such other amounts as may be found not recoverable from him together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the application. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No. costs. "in pursuance of the above directions, again an enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted a report. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No. costs. "in pursuance of the above directions, again an enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted a report. The relevant portions of the report contained at paras VI and vii which are relevant to decision-making read as follows :-"vi : Reasons for finding : Police has issued a 'b' report on 11-6-1997 in a manuscript memo after two years that the missing briefcase and its contents are not traced. Closing number of Foreign EFT written in the letter reported to have been sent to Sr. DCM on 21-6-1995 is not submitted on 1-9-1995. There Is further no evidence available from any other sources to come to a definite conclusion that the lost EFT books are detected or not misused. It is observed that Sri K. Vijaya Kumar has not taken due care for the safe custody of the EFT books. He has left the briefcase in a casual manner while signing off and has left the place. EFT is cash value usable book. As there is no limitation fixed, it can be used at any time by an individual who possesses it. The debit raised is for a single II Mail/exp fare whereas there is ample chance for misusing the EFTs as the to and from station and class column are blank, it can be issued to any station for any class and for any other miscellaneous purpose thus can cause heavy financial loss to the Railways. Debit raised is as per the provisions contained in Traffic Accounts Manual, hence it is in order. Details of debit raised, remittance made by the TC and the amount due are shown in Annexure-I. In this case, the 'debit' falls under 'recoverable' clause as the loss of EFTs was due to the gross negligence of the employee and he is still in service, salary recovery was seen affected as the employee has failed to clear the outstanding. VII Finding: Based on the oral and material evidence, I am of the firm opinion that the loss of EFTs/coupons/lcc by Sri K. Vijayakumar, TC/sbc was due to his sheer negligence and the salary recovery made is in order. VII Finding: Based on the oral and material evidence, I am of the firm opinion that the loss of EFTs/coupons/lcc by Sri K. Vijayakumar, TC/sbc was due to his sheer negligence and the salary recovery made is in order. "on the basis of the said report when recovery of amount was effected, the respondent again approached the Tribunal by filing original Application No. 1052 of 2000 contending that since there is no finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the actual loss sustained by the Board, the amount recovered is unsustainable in law particularly in view of Rule 229 of the rules. The Original Application was opposed by the department by filing reply statement contending that there was no evidence to show that the EFT files or missing EFT tickets have not been misused and since the police have not detected and recovered the missing EFT tickets or files, the amount recovered could not be faulted. The Tribunal having found merit in the contention of the respondent applicant and not finding merit in the defence put forth by the department, allowed the Original Application and directed the department and its authorities to refund the sum of Rs. 35,611/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the time the previous original Application was filed till payment vide its order dated 18-9-2001. Hence, this writ petition by the department. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri N. S. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner-department and the respondent who appeared in person. Sri Prasad, with his usual persuasiveness and vehemence would contend that if it is insisted that the department should establish that the inspector to whom the tickets is entrusted are actually sold and thereby caused loss to the department-railways in order to direct recovery of the loss, in no case, such a thing can be established by evidence, and therefore, the provisions of Rule 229 of the Rules should be interpreted keeping in view the object/purpose of the said Rule. In other words, Sri. Prasad would submit that the rule of purposive interpretation should be applied to interpret the provisions of Rule 229. ( 3 ) THE respondent, per contra, would support the order of the Tribunal and submit that he merely lost the tickets entrusted to him and has not sold those tickets to cause any loss to the department. Prasad would submit that the rule of purposive interpretation should be applied to interpret the provisions of Rule 229. ( 3 ) THE respondent, per contra, would support the order of the Tribunal and submit that he merely lost the tickets entrusted to him and has not sold those tickets to cause any loss to the department. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned Standing counsel for the Railways and the respondent in person, the short question that arises for decision making is, "whether the department has established that the tickets entrusted to the respondent were actually sold thereby causing loss to the department?" ( 5 ) RULE 229 of the Rules reads as follows:-"rule 229 : Deficiency or loss of ticket - if subsequent to the acknowledgment of the correct receipt of the supply of tickets, any deficiency or loss of tickets is noticed, the station Master should take action according to the instructions contained in para 227{b ). An enquiry will be made to determine the cause of loss and in 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 addition to any other disciplinary action as may be considered necessary according to the merits of each case. If however, the result of the enquiry shows that the tickets were not actually sold and the value thereof was not actually lost, such disciplinary action as may be considered necessary according to the merits of each case will be taken against the staff responsible. "the language of Rule 229 is plain, precise, unambiguous and it does not admit more than one meaning. A careful reading of Rule 229 would show that the rule maker has envisaged two contingencies in order to proceed against an official who causes loss of the tickets entrusted to him. The first category includes a situation wherein the department, on enquiry and appreciation of evidence on record, would conclude that the tickets in question were actually sold thereby causing money loss to the department. If there is such proof against an official, then, rule 229 enables the department to recover the actual loss sustained by the department. The first category includes a situation wherein the department, on enquiry and appreciation of evidence on record, would conclude that the tickets in question were actually sold thereby causing money loss to the department. If there is such proof against an official, then, rule 229 enables the department to recover the actual loss sustained by the department. Another situation arises where the department after enquiry would conclude that the official has merely lost the tickets, but there is no evidence to show that he sold the tickets for price thereby causing loss to the department. In such situation, Rule 229 would only enable the department to proceed against such employee departmentally and rule 229 would not enable the department to recover the price of the lost tickets. The above is the clear intendment of Rule 229. It is impermissible for the Court to interpret the provisions of Rule 229 in such a way as to wipe out the clear distinctions made by the Rule-maker himself between the two situations noted above. The phrase "in 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" occurring in Rule 229 would not leave any doubt in our mind that the recovery is possible only when it is satisfactorily established that the railway servant has sold the tickets and thereby caused loss to the railways. ( 6 ) WE have carefully perused the report of the enquiry officer particularly paras V and VI. From the observations made and the finding recorded therein, it could not be said that the department has established that the tickets in question were actually sold by the respondent railway servant and thereby he caused loss to the railway. But, it is a fact that he lost the tickets entrusted to him. We are not called upon to decide whether the department could proceed against him departmentally for the loss of the tickets. It is very much within the domain of discretionary power of the department to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent employee. But, it is a fact that he lost the tickets entrusted to him. We are not called upon to decide whether the department could proceed against him departmentally for the loss of the tickets. It is very much within the domain of discretionary power of the department to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent employee. ( 7 ) NO case is made out for the department to recover the price of the lost tickets because it is not proved that the lost tickets were actually sold by the respondent for price and the same was not credited to the accounts of the railways. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting with this case, a request of Sri. Prasad to deny interest to the respondent needs to be noticed. If the recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,611/- from the salary of the respondent is held unjustified and illegal, it would be totally improper for the Court to deny a reasonable rate of interest on the said sum till the said sum is refunded to the respondent. The Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% which we think is quite reasonable rate to be awarded. ( 9 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the writ petition, however with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .