ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) The petitioners who are Union of India and Officials of the Indian Railways have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Branch, Patna in O.A.No. 817 of 2005 dated 28th July 2010 (Annexure-1) mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has interfered with the penalty imposed upon the respondent/applicant on misreading of the order of penalty and by wrongfully holding that the penalty was under Rule 6(iii) of the Railway Servant (D & A) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Rules’) 2. On hearing the parties and on going through the records, particularly the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, contained in Annexure-3 as well as the appellate order contained in Annexure-4, we find that the appellate authority has gone into some details to notice that although the Enquiry Officer found the charge to be proved only in part, the disciplinary authority gave another show cause notice to the applicant because it did not agree with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. After considering the further show cause submitted by the applicant the order of punishment was passed whereby in his own scale of pay, the petitioner was reduced from Rs.8,100/- to Rs.6,500/- for three months and the reduction was to have cumulative effect. 3. The main issue is whether such a punishment or penalty was a penalty under Rule 6(iii) of the Rules which has been quashed in Para-11 of the impugned order by the Tribunal. Rule 6(iii) of the Rules deals only with recovery from the pay for any pecuniary loss caused by the delinquent to the Government or the Railway Administration by negligence or breach of order. From the charge mentioned by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report, contained in Annexure-2 as well as from the order of punishment it is beyond any doubt that the charge was not for any pecuniary loss caused by the delinquent to the Government or the Railway Administration by negligence or breach of order. The punishment was also not for recovery towards any pecuniary loss. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal wrongly interfered with the order of penalty on the ground that no such penalty for recovery could have been passed when there was no pecuniary loss to the Government. The punishment was also not for recovery towards any pecuniary loss. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal wrongly interfered with the order of penalty on the ground that no such penalty for recovery could have been passed when there was no pecuniary loss to the Government. The entire order of the Tribunal is based upon misreading the order of penalty. The penalty does not fall under Rule 6(iii) of the Rules and hence, reasonings of the learned Tribunal are misplaced and cannot be a ground for interfering with the order of penalty passed against the respondent/applicant. 5. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside.