JUDGMENT : Ravindra V. Ghuge J. 01. By an order dated 14/07/2006, this petition was admitted. 02. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge his “compulsory removal from service” effected by the Respondent employer dated 27/12/2001 and the judgment of CAT dated 30/09/2004 whereby his original application was dismissed. 03. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. The submissions of Shri.M.S.Karnik, learned advocate for the petitioner can be summarized as under : a) The petitioner was appointed as a 'Booking Clerk' with the respondent-Railway Department. b) He was posted as a 'Booking Clerk' at the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, Mumbai. c) On 26/11/1999, the petitioner was issued with a chargesheet. d) Two charges were levelled against him. The first charge was that he had over charged the Decoy passenger by Rs.2/- and the second charge was that Rs.122/- were found short in the railway cash. e) The petitioner in his written say denied the charges and has explained his case through his reply dated 30/11/2000. f) The petitioner stated that the Decoy passenger had carried the currency notes of 100 and 50. g) The Decoy passenger was asked to wait in order to accept the change of Rs.2/-, which was supposed to be returned to him. h) Since the petitioner did not have the necessary change, the Decoy passenger should have waited as per his instructions, but he went away. i) The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 30/11/2000 after concluding the inquiry. j) A copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was supplied to the petitioner and his explanation was called for. k) The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 28/05/2001, explaining his stand and denying having committed any misconduct. l) By the order dated 18/07/2001, the Disciplinary Authority awarded a major punishment to the petitioner by effecting his “removal from service” from 30/07/2001. m) The petitioner was given the opportunity of preferring an appeal within 45 days to the Appellate Authority as per rules. n) The petitioner moved an appeal dated 04/09/2001 to the Appellate Authority thereby requesting it to reconsider the case of the petitioner, set aside the order of punishment and reinstate the petitioner in service. o) By an order dated 18/09/2001, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. However, he was given the liberty to prefer a Revision Petition within 45 days as per rules. o) By an order dated 18/09/2001, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. However, he was given the liberty to prefer a Revision Petition within 45 days as per rules. p) The petitioner moved a Revision Petition to the Revisional Authority on 24/10/2001. The same request was made to the Revisional Authority as was made to the Appellate Authority. q) By the impugned order dated 27/12/2001, the Revisional Authority upon considering the Revision Petition of the petitioner, passed a reasoned order thereby reducing the punishment initially awarded to the petitioner from “removal from service” to “compulsory retirement from service”. r) By the reduction of the punishment, the petitioner stood to gain all retiral benefits as well as the liberty to obtain Government employment, which he was deprived of by the order of punishment dated 18/07/2001. s) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27/12/2001 issued by the Revisional Authority before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai (“C.A.T. in short) on 20/11/2002. t) The original application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the impugned judgment and order of the C.A.T. dated 30/09/2004. u) It is stated that the Vigilance Department has influenced the Disciplinary Authority by it's communication dated 20/06/2001 and 03/07/2001. v) Had the Vigilance Department not influenced the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner would not have been awarded the impugned punishment, since the punishment of reversion in rank was being proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. w) The two communications dated 20/06/2001 and 03/07/2001 from the Vigilance Department and the reply of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28/06/2001 clearly indicate that the Disciplinary Authority had proposed the punishment of reversion to the initial cadre (RSRP) for a period of three years with cumulative effect x) The impugned order is rendered unsustainable as it is an outcome of the influence exerted by the Vigilance Department, upon the Disciplinary Authority. y) Neither the law nor the principles of natural justice permit the Disciplinary Authority either to consult the Vigilance Department or be influenced by any person under any Authority in the matter of deciding the quantum of punishment to an employee. z) It is prayed that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 27/12/2001 and the impugned judgment of C.A.T. dated 30/09/2004, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 04. z) It is prayed that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 27/12/2001 and the impugned judgment of C.A.T. dated 30/09/2004, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 04. The learned advocate Shri.T.J.Pandian appearing on behalf of the Department of Railway-respondents No.1 to 3, has made his submissions, which can be summarized as follows : a) The Vigilance Department of the Indian Railways sent a Decoy passenger to the ticket booking window No.1 of the Booking Clerk-Shri.S.C.Tiwari who is the petitioner herein. b) While purchasing the tickets, the total fare of the Decoy passenger was to the tune of Rs.478/-. The petitioner did not return two rupees to the Decoy passenger. c) The Decoy passenger had carried 5 notes of Rs.100/- denomination and two notes of Rs.50/- denomination with him. d) The currency notes offered by the Decoy passenger to the petitioner were pre-marked by the Vigilance Department. e) An independent witness accompanied the Decoy passenger to the window of the petitioner. f) On inspection by the Vigilance Department Rs.122/- were found short in the railway cash of the petitioner's booking window. g) Reliance is placed on the Railway Servant's (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (“1966 Rules” in short) and the Railway Servant's (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (“1968 Rules” in short). h) Rule 3(1) of the 1966 Rules mandates that every railway servants shall at all times (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway servant. i) Rule 6 under Part III of the 1968 Rules prescribes major penalties from Clause (v) to (ix). j) Rule 9 under Part IV of the 1968 Rules prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties and the said procedure has been followed by the respondent-Railways Department. k) The Vigilance Department had taken up the exercise of sending a Decoy passenger within it's power and as such it was the Vigilance Department which had conducted the said operation. l) The petitioner falls in Group C employees. The Circular RBE No.93 of 2001 lays down the procedure for Non-CVC vigilance cases pertaining to Group C and Group D employees. m) The above mentioned circular enables the Disciplinary Authority to give due regard to the advice of the Vigilance Department and to strive to remove/reduce all areas of disagreement with the Vigilance Department by mutual consultation and discussion. The Circular RBE No.93 of 2001 lays down the procedure for Non-CVC vigilance cases pertaining to Group C and Group D employees. m) The above mentioned circular enables the Disciplinary Authority to give due regard to the advice of the Vigilance Department and to strive to remove/reduce all areas of disagreement with the Vigilance Department by mutual consultation and discussion. In the event of a disagreement between two, the Disciplinary Authority is free to take an independent decision on the case. n) The Vigilance Department in it's letter dated 20/06/2001 and 03/07/2001 have neither insisted nor influenced the Disciplinary Authority to award a grave punishment to the petitioner. The Vigilance Department has only advised the Disciplinary Authority to impose a penalty in conformity with the Railway Board guidelines in disciplinary matters. So also, the Vigilance Department has requested the Disciplinary Authority to consider imposition of any of the penalties prescribed under Rule (vii-ix) of the 1968 Rules in conformity with the Railway Board guidelines. o) The Disciplinary Authority has arrived at an independent conclusion after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and the gravity of the misconduct proved to have been committed by the petitioner, while awarding the punishment. p) The Revisional Authority, after considering the Revision Petition of the petitioner, has reduced the punishment. q) From any angle an act of dishonesty and misappropriation of the railway cash cannot be termed to be a misconduct of a minor or trivial nature. r) The Apex Court has laid down the law that misappropriation by itself is a grave and serious misconduct and the amount involved is immaterial. s) The CAT in the impugned judgment has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be deprived of his employment on account of the grave and serious misconduct, in as much as, the Disciplinary Authority has correctly arrived at an independent decision. t) The petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, be dismissed. 05. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective sides, we have gone through the entire petition paper book with their assistance and have considered reliance placed on reported judgments by both the sides. 06. We have gone through the charge sheet dated 26/11/1999. It is clearly set out that the respondent-employer proposed an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the 1968 Rules. 06. We have gone through the charge sheet dated 26/11/1999. It is clearly set out that the respondent-employer proposed an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the 1968 Rules. Annexure I and Annexure II clearly set out the statement of articles of charge and the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge. Annexure III and IV pertain to list of documents and list of witnesses by whom the article of charge are proposed to be sustained. The petitioner was given access to the documents and was permitted to take assistance of any other railway servant or an official of the Railway Trade Union subject to 1968 Rules. 07. Before us, there has been no challenge to the fairness of the enquiry and as regards the fairness of the Enquiry Officer's report. The petitioner has focused his case purely on the aspect that the misconduct is of a minor character and the Disciplinary Authority was inclined to award punishment of reversion, but for the undue influence and pressure exerted by the Vigilance Department owing to which the Disciplinary Authority was compelled to award a grave punishment. 08. In the light of the challenge posed before us by the petitioner, we find it appropriate to advert to the Rules of 1966 and 1968 coupled with the correspondence between the Vigilance Department and the Disciplinary Authority. 09. A Decoy passenger approached his booking window. The Vigilance Department had entrusted him with five notes of Rs.100/- denomination and two notes of Rs.50/- denomination. Each of these notes were pre-marked and their numbers were noted by the Vigilance Department. The Decoy passenger purchased tickets whose total fare was Rs.478/-. Rs.20/- were returned to the Decoy passenger by the petitioner. It has been proved through evidence that the Decoy passenger was not asked to wait by the petitioner in order to return Rs. 2/-, which according to the petitioner was not available with him either in loose coins or currency notes. The Decoy passenger then left and the Vigilance Department swooped in. In the inspection conducted by the Vigilance Department, it was noticed that the petitioner had a short fall of Rs.122/- in his cash which could not be explained. 10. 2/-, which according to the petitioner was not available with him either in loose coins or currency notes. The Decoy passenger then left and the Vigilance Department swooped in. In the inspection conducted by the Vigilance Department, it was noticed that the petitioner had a short fall of Rs.122/- in his cash which could not be explained. 10. We are not impressed by the submissions of the petitioner that had he had the intention of misappropriating money, excess cash would have been found in his cash box. The fact remains that the final tally of money indicated a short fall of Rs.122/-. Nevertheless the charges having been proved against the petitioner, we are not called upon to reappreciate the evidence on record and to arrive at an independent finding as to whether the charges have been proved or not. 11. Rule 3 of the 1966 Rules reads as under : 3. General. (1) Every railway servant shall at all times- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway servant. 12. Rule 6 under Part III of the 1968 Rules along with Sub-rules reads as under : 6. 11. Rule 3 of the 1966 Rules reads as under : 3. General. (1) Every railway servant shall at all times- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway servant. 12. Rule 6 under Part III of the 1968 Rules along with Sub-rules reads as under : 6. Penalties : The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Railway servant, namely:- Minor Penalties - (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion for a specified period; (iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government or Railway Administration by negligence or breach of orders; (iii-a) Withholding of the Privilege Passes or Privilege Ticket Orders or both; (iii-b) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension; (iv) Withholding of increments of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period this will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; Major Penalties - (v) Save as provided for in clause (iii-b) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post, or service, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Railway servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; (vii) Compulsory retirement; (viii) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or Railway Administration; (ix) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or Railway Administration: Provided that in cases of persons found guilty of any act or omission which resulted or would have, ordinarily, resulted in collision of Railway trains, one of the penalties specified in clauses (viii) and (ix) shall, ordinarily, be imposed and in cases of passing Railway signals at danger, one of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) shall, ordinarily be imposed and where such penalty is not imposed, the reasons therefor shall be recorded in writing: Provided further that in case of persons found guilty of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income or found guilty of having accepted or having obtained from any person any gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, one of the penalties specified in clauses (viii) or (ix) shall ordinarily be imposed and where such penalty is not imposed, the reasons therefore shall be recorded in writing. 13. Rule 10(iv) and (v) of the 1968 Rules reads as under : 10. Action on the inquiry report :- (1).............. (2)............. (3)............ (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 6 should be imposed on the railway servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 11, make an order imposing such penalty: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Railway Servant. (5) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses(v) to (ix) of rule 6 should be imposed on the railway servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the railway servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty on the railway servant”. 14. It is thus clear that the respondent had proposed the enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 9. The vexed issue before us is whether the misconduct proved against the petitioner could be termed as a “minor misconduct” and as to whether the consultation between the Vigilance Department which conducted the operation and the Disciplinary Authority, could be termed as an “undue influence” exerted by the Vigilance Department, as are the submissions of the petitioner. 15. The Circular RBE No.93 of 2001 referred to above reads as under: R.B.E. No.93/2001 Subject : Procedure for non-CVC vigilance cases pertaining to Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees. 15. The Circular RBE No.93 of 2001 referred to above reads as under: R.B.E. No.93/2001 Subject : Procedure for non-CVC vigilance cases pertaining to Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees. [No.E(D&A)2000/RG 6-30, dated 16.5.2001.] The role of Vigilance Organization in the non-CVC disciplinary cases, which arise out of their investigations, was one of the items in the agenda of the JCM/DC meeting held with the staff side in June, 2000. Pursuant to the discussions in the meeting and after further examination of the issues raised by the staff side, Board would like to clarify/specify as under:- (i) Appointment of Inquiry Officer is the prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority. In majority of the cases, the Vigilance Organization will leave the choice of Inquiry Officer completely with the Disciplinary Authority. In such a case, while appointing Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority may ensure that the officer being appointed by him for conduct of Inquiry is of sound integrity and possesses adequate knowledge of rules and procedures in regard to conduct of inquiry, which is a quasi-judicial proceeding. (ii) However, in some cases, the Vigilance would forward a panel of Inquiry Officers, indicating the number of inquiries pending with each one of them. The Disciplinary Authority in that case may choose one out of panel and appoint him as Inquiry Officer. In cases involving more than one charged official, special care may be taken by all the concerned DAs to appoint the same inquiry officer out of the panel of I.O's sent by Vigilance. (iii) In terms of this Ministry's letter No.78/V-I/CVC/1/2, dated 17.3.1989, the disciplinary authority may give due regard to the advice of the Vigilance Organization and strive to remove/reduce areas of disagreement, if any, with the Vigilance, by mutual consultation and discussion. However, if there is still a disagreement, the disciplinary authority is free to take an independent decision on the case. In partial modification of the Ministry's aforesaid letter dated 17.3.1989, it has been decided that if, in a case, the Vigilance has recommended a major penalty and the disciplinary authority proposes to exonerate or impose a minor penalty, the disciplinary authority should first record his provisional order and then consult Vigilance Organization once. However, if, after such consultation, the Disciplinary Authority is not in agreement with the views of Vigilance, then he/she is free to proceed and pass speaking order about the penalty. However, if, after such consultation, the Disciplinary Authority is not in agreement with the views of Vigilance, then he/she is free to proceed and pass speaking order about the penalty. The Vigilance Organization may, if they so consider, seek revision of the penalty by the appropriate authority. Likewise, where a major penalty has been imposed by the disciplinary authority in agreement with the recommendations of the Vigilance but the appellate/revisionary authority proposes to exonerate or impose a minor penalty, the appellate/revisionary authority may first record provisional decision and consult the Vigilance Organization once. After such consultation, the appellate/revisionary authority is free to take a final decision in the matter and record his/her views about penalty through speaking order. 2. It has been observed that, in many cases, disciplinary/appellate/revisionary authorities invariably refer all the disciplinary cases arising out of vigilance investigation to the Vigilance Organization, before taking a final decision in the case. It is advised that consultation with Vigilance is required only in those cases where they intend to impose/modify the penalty at variance with Vigilance's advice of major penalty. 3. The Disciplinary Authority may ensure that the copy of 'Notice Imposing Penalty (NIP) is sent to Vigilance promptly on issue, so that they can take necessary action to process for revision, if considered necessary. 4. There will be no change in the extant procedure for dealing with cases involving CVC's advice. 16. We neither have any hesitation nor any doubt in our mind that the misconduct proved to have been committed by the petitioner is of a grave and serious nature. We do not intend to enlarge this judgment by referring to several reported judgments of the Apex Court as well as many High Courts on the point that misappropriation of whatsoever nature, irrespective of whether it involves Rs.1/- or thousands, is a grave and serious misconduct. It is trite that such a misconduct could never be treated leniently on the ground that such a misconduct is of a minor nature. Quantum of the amount misappropriated is not the yardstick to be considered while awarding punishment in cases of misappropriation, theft, fraud etc. 17. It is trite that such a misconduct could never be treated leniently on the ground that such a misconduct is of a minor nature. Quantum of the amount misappropriated is not the yardstick to be considered while awarding punishment in cases of misappropriation, theft, fraud etc. 17. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Ranjana Desai & Roshan Dalvi, JJ) in the case of Nilesh R Mandra V/s. Union of India & Others, 2008(4) ALL MR 789, in paragraphs No.6, 7 and 8 as under :- 6. Though undoubtedly the overcharging is to a very limited extent, it is only with regard to that decoy passenger. It is in respect of a case in which the petitioner has been watched and caught. It leaves out the numerous instances when the petitioner may not have been watched and caught. Each passenger is a victim. Each passenger has consequently been cheated and defrauded to that extent. The fact that the petitioner could overcharge a passenger whilst being under vigilance and scrutiny showed that the petitioner took advantage of either the ignorance or the illiteracy of the victim. It shows a dishonest attitude of the Government servant. It causes financial loss to the institution he serves. It results in criminal breach of trust between the third party contracting with the institution as also qua the petitioner in the service of that institution. It results in misappropriation of funds as it would cause unlawful loss to the third party and unlawful gain to the petitioner. In a given case, albeit to that limited extent, misappropriation of each small amount may cause unlawful loss to that extent to the institution and the corresponding unlawful gain to the petitioner by the use of such dishonest means and by misconducting himself. 7. It is in this light that it is a settled position in law through various judgments of the Apex Court that the quantum of the amount misappropriated, stolen or defrauded is not the yardstick to determine the extent of the punishment. No matter what is the amount the conduct betrays the trust of the institution in its worker. The institution, therefore, loses confidence in the worker. That institution, therefore, is entitled, upon proof of the misconduct, to remove such employee. 8. No matter what is the amount the conduct betrays the trust of the institution in its worker. The institution, therefore, loses confidence in the worker. That institution, therefore, is entitled, upon proof of the misconduct, to remove such employee. 8. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that it is a small act of a small man and the punishment is, therefore, disproportionate to his misconduct. We cannot persuade ourselves not to consider the victim's point of view. Just as the petitioner is a small man and has committed a small misconduct, his victim is an equally a small man. Rs. 25/- matters to a passenger taking a second class daily ticket from Khadavli to Pune. Such victims would be expected to prefer a rate lesser even to that extent to make that small saving. It is only because of his illiteracy or the ignorance of the ticket value that he could be cheated, albeit to that extent. We must, therefore, not turn a nelson's eye to the victim's point of view. In this light, we must refer to the judgments of the Apex Court cited before us by the counsel for the respondents. 18. This leaves us to deal with the last issue which has been forcefully argued by Shri.M.S.Karnik-the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority was unduly influenced and pressurized to award a grave punishment to the petitioner. The gravamen of the submissions of the petitioner is that the Disciplinary Authority was inclined to award the punishment of reversion to the initial cadre of Rs. 3200-Rs.4000 (RSRP), fixing the pay at Rs.3200/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. It is by the letters of the Vigilance Department dated 20/06/2001 and 03/07/2001 that the Disciplinary Authority was influenced and pressurized to award a grave punishment. 19. We find from these two letters that the Vigilance Department has only tried to highlight the seriousness of the misconduct proved against the petitioner. In both these letters this is a common thread of submissions by the Vigilance Department. In the first letter dated 20/06/2001, the Disciplinary Authority was requested to reconsider and impose a penalty in conformity with Railway Board's guidelines on the subject. In both these letters this is a common thread of submissions by the Vigilance Department. In the first letter dated 20/06/2001, the Disciplinary Authority was requested to reconsider and impose a penalty in conformity with Railway Board's guidelines on the subject. In the second letter dated 03/07/2001, the Disciplinary Authority was requested to consider the imposition of any of the penalty under Rule 6(vii-ix) of the 1968 Rules in conformity with the Board's guidelines. 20. We further find from Rule 10(5) of the 1968 Rules that the Disciplinary Authority has the liberty to seek an advice from the Commission. The circular placed before us i.e. R.B.E.No.93 of 2001 specifically provides for the Disciplinary Authority consulting the Vigilance Organization in such cases. It is sufficiently clear from the said Circular that if there is any disagreement between the Disciplinary Authority and the Vigilance Department, the Disciplinary Authority will be free to take an independent decision on the case. Thereafter, the communication sent by the Disciplinary Authority to the Vigilance Department in the form of Notes Imposing Penalty (NIP) would be binding upon the Vigilance Department. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a reported judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Satyendra Chandra Jain V/s. Punjab National Bank and Ors. reported at (1997) 11 SCC 444 . In the said case, the Chief Vigilance Officer had recommended a severe punishment of removal from service to the Disciplinary Authority. It was a clear view and opinion of the Chief Vigilance Officer that the punishment of removal from service should be imposed. Judgment in the case of Nagraj Shivarao Karjagi V/s. Syndicate Bank, Head Office reported at (1991)3 SCC 219 was cited. 22. In the said case reference was made to a directive dated 21/07/1984 issued by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) to all banking institutions whereby it was stated that under no circumstances, the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission should be modified except with the prior concurrence of the Commissioner and the Ministry. The Apex Court held such a directive to be wholly unsustainable. It was concluded that the Disciplinary Authority abdicated it's function entrusted to it by law of deciding the punishment to be imposed and it acted under the dictates of the Central Vigilance Commission. The Apex Court held such a directive to be wholly unsustainable. It was concluded that the Disciplinary Authority abdicated it's function entrusted to it by law of deciding the punishment to be imposed and it acted under the dictates of the Central Vigilance Commission. It was concluded that the Disciplinary Authority had the discretion to decide the quantum of punishment. It was also concluded that the impugned order of punishment was passed when the said directive was operative. 23. We find the ratio laid down in the Satyendra Chandra Jain (supra) and Nagraj case (supra) to be inapplicable to the facts of this case. There is no directive in operation with the Indian Railways akin to the directive dated 21/07/1984 that was operative when the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment in the Nagraj and Satyendra Chandra Jain cases. Moreover, we find that both the letters written by the Vigilance Department merely highlight the seriousness of the misconduct, in as much as, it advised the Disciplinary Authority to follow the Rules and take a decision as it may deem fit. We, therefore, do not find that the said letters written by the Vigilance Department, was a determined effort to direct the Disciplinary Authority to award a specific punishment to the petitioner. 24. The respondent has relied upon an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12/06/2008 in the case of Union of India V/s. Sandeep Manjrekar, delivered in W.P.Nos. 8063 of 2004 and 8675 of 2004. This Court while dealing with a similar situation, has observed in Paragraphs No. 4 and 5 as under : 4. ..... The charge No.2 is definitely a charge of receiving illegal gratification. It is in this background, that Rule 6 of the Discipline Rules of the Railway Service becomes relevant. 8063 of 2004 and 8675 of 2004. This Court while dealing with a similar situation, has observed in Paragraphs No. 4 and 5 as under : 4. ..... The charge No.2 is definitely a charge of receiving illegal gratification. It is in this background, that Rule 6 of the Discipline Rules of the Railway Service becomes relevant. Proviso to that rule reads as under : “Provided further that in case of persons found guilty of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income or found guilty of having accepted or having obtained from any person any gratification other then legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, one of the penalties specified in clauses (viii) or (ix) shall ordinarily be imposed and where such penalty is not imposed, the reasons therefore shall be recorded in writing.” Now, it is clear that before interfering with the Order imposing punishment, consideration of above quoted provision was relevant. Perusal of the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal shows that the CAT while holding that the punishment is disproportionate has excluded from its consideration the above quoted provision. it is not a settled law that when a Judicial or Quasi Judicial authority excludes from its consideration the relevant provision, the finding recorded by such Judicial or Quasi Judicial Authority gets vitiated because it is one of the Principle of Natural Justice that the Judicial and Quasi Judicial Authority can not allow any irrelevant consideration enter the mind and they can not exclude from their consideration aspects which are relevant. The Central administrative Tribunal while considering the question whether the punishment is proper or not has not considered the provision quoted above and therefore that part of the order is liable to be set aside. 5. We have also gone through the correspondence exchanged between the Disciplinary Authority and the Vigilance Cell. All that has been done by the Vigilance Cell is that it advised the Disciplinary Authority that looking to the nature of misconduct, stringent punishment is required to be imposed. Even ignoring whatever advise is given by the Vigilance Cell, the Disciplinary Authority, in view of the provisions of the Rules quoted above was under a duty to impose one of the two major punishments, unless it finds that there are reasons which are required to be recorded in writing for imposing a lesser punishment. Even ignoring whatever advise is given by the Vigilance Cell, the Disciplinary Authority, in view of the provisions of the Rules quoted above was under a duty to impose one of the two major punishments, unless it finds that there are reasons which are required to be recorded in writing for imposing a lesser punishment. In our opinion, therefore, considering the purpose why the above quoted provision has been enacted, in the present case there was no room for the Disciplinary Authority to impose any punishment lesser than dismissal or removal. From the proposal that was sent by the Disciplinary Authority to the Vigilance Cell it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority has not indicated any reason why lesser punishment in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority will be adequate. Looking to the language used in the provision imposing Punishment of dismissal or removal is automatic on finding the delinquent guilty of accepting illegal gratification. Reasons are required to be recorded only if lesser punishment is to be imposed. In our opinion, as we also find that the charge of illegal gratification is clearly proved against the petition, there was no room for the Disciplinary Authority to impose any other punishment than removal under the advise or without the advise or the Vigilance Department. In our opinion, therefore, the Order of the CAT modifying the Order of the punishment is liable to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 25. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the correspondence between the Disciplinary Authority and the Vigilance Department simply indicates that the Vigilance Department called upon the Disciplinary Authority to look into the seriousness and the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner and consider his case from that angle for awarding a commensurate punishment. We are, therefore, convinced that the Vigilance Department has neither unduly influenced the Disciplinary Authority nor has it compelled the Disciplinary Authority to award a specific punishment to the petitioner. Hence, we find no illegality in the action of the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, the Revisional Authority has reduced the punishment of the petitioner. 26. We are, therefore, convinced that the Vigilance Department has neither unduly influenced the Disciplinary Authority nor has it compelled the Disciplinary Authority to award a specific punishment to the petitioner. Hence, we find no illegality in the action of the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, the Revisional Authority has reduced the punishment of the petitioner. 26. It is in these circumstances that we do not find any legal infirmity, error or perversity in the impugned action of the Disciplinary Authority and the impugned judgment of the C.A.T. dated 03/09/2004 and the impugned order dated 19/04/2005. 27. The petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.