Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-013017-013017 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 19424/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms CAT’s judgment quashing the dismissal order |
| Type of Law | Service law (disciplinary proceedings under Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a disciplinary enquiry is vitiated when a key complainant is not examined or subjected to cross-examination and findings are based on contradictory or unsubstantiated evidence. Charges must be proved on reliable material and in conformity with principles of natural justice. Where the Enquiry Officer’s conclusions are perverse, a service tribunal has jurisdiction to quash the penalty. High Court exceeded its limited review by reinstating perverse findings. Restoration of CAT’s order was necessary, and consequential benefits, including pensionary relief, were directed to be released to the legal heirs. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant, a Travelling Ticket Examiner in Central Railway, was charged in 1989 with demanding illegal gratification from passengers, retaining excess cash, failing to collect a fare difference, and forging his duty card. A departmental enquiry held all charges proved and imposed dismissal in 1996, which was affirmed on appeal. CAT quashed the dismissal in 2002 for want of evidence and perverse findings; the High Court reversed CAT but, on appeal, the Supreme Court restored CAT’s order. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Departmental enquiries are vitiated if a complainant whose statement forms the basis of charges is not examined or cross-examined.
- Reliance on post-incident circulars to substantiate past allegations is impermissible.
- Absence of documentary or expert evidence on alleged forgery and fare discrepancies undermines the prosecution’s case.
- CAT’s power to set aside perverse findings by disciplinary authorities is reaffirmed, notwithstanding High Court’s supervisory role.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Perverse findings on illegal gratification: Two passengers contradicted allegations; the third complainant was never examined—denial of fair hearing and perverse reliance on his untested statement.
- Excess cash charge: No ceiling on cash holdings prescribed; amount was deposited in Railway Sundry Accounts and no misappropriation proven; post-incident circular inadmissible.
- Unproved fare difference: Charge based solely on vigilance inspector’s statement; absence of passenger testimony and receipt book rendered the finding unsubstantiated.
- Forgery allegation: Enquiry Officer did not find forgery proved; no handwriting expert opinion or documentary proof; charge rightly held not proved.
- Scope of review: Supreme Court emphasized that CAT legitimately interfered where enquiry findings were perverse; High Court erred in substituting its view over factual conclusions lacking evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Legal Heirs)
- Enquiry penalty was mechanical reproduction of report; no independent application of mind.
- Principal complainant (Hemant Kumar) not examined or cross-examined; denial of fair hearing.
- Other passengers’ statements contradicted charges.
- No rule prescribed a cash ceiling; amount deposited and no misappropriation.
- Absence of records and witnesses for fare difference; no expert opinion on forgery.
Respondents (Railway Authorities)
- Disciplinary authority’s order was reasoned and after full opportunity to defend.
- Enquiry Officer’s findings supported by reasons; CAT erred in interference.
- Non-examination of one complainant did not invalidate the entire enquiry.
Factual Background
- The appellant, working as a Travelling Ticket Examiner on Central Railway, was subjected to a surprise vigilance check on 31.05.1988.
- He was accused of demanding illicit payments (Rs. 25, 20, and 5), holding excess cash of Rs. 1,254, failing to collect Rs. 18 fare difference, and forging his duty card validity.
- A charge-sheet under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii), was issued on 03.07.1989, and a departmental enquiry found all charges proved by 31.12.1995.
- Dismissal was ordered on 07.06.1996 and upheld on departmental appeal in 1997.
- CAT quashed dismissal in 2002; High Court reversed in 2017; Supreme Court restored CAT’s order in 2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966: Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) defines lack of integrity or devotion to duty as misconduct.
- The judgment stresses rigorous adherence to rules of natural justice in departmental enquiries and the requirement of proof beyond mere allegations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms CAT’s jurisdiction to quash perverse disciplinary findings.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – High Court’s reversal of CAT set aside as outside its limited supervisory review.