The Supreme Court of India on Monday allowed an appeal filed by the legal heirs of a deceased Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE), setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld his dismissal from service over charges dating back to 1988.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra restored the 2002 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, which had quashed the TTE’s dismissal. The apex court held that the findings of the departmental Enquiry Officer were “perverse” and based on “completely misleading of the materials.”
The judgment, authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, concludes a legal battle that spanned over three decades, originating from an incident on May 31, 1988.
Background of the Case
At the relevant time, the appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was serving as a TTE with Central Railway, Nagpur. On May 31, 1988, a surprise check was conducted by the Railway vigilance team while he was on duty in the Second Class Sleeper Coach of the 39-Down Dadar-Nagpur Express.
Following the check, a charge-sheet dated July 3, 1989, was issued against him under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The charges alleged that the appellant had:
- Demanded illegal gratification from passengers (Rs. 25 from Hemant Kumar, unrefunded Rs. 20 from Dinesh Choudhary, and unrefunded Rs. 5 from Rajkumar Jaiswal) for berth allotment.
- Been found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 1254.
- Failed to recover a fare difference of Rs. 18 from one passenger.
- Forged a duty card pass by extending its validity.
It was alleged that the appellant had exhibited a “lack of integrity and devotion to duty” under Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of the 1966 Rules.
A departmental enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on December 31, 1995, holding all charges proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority (Divisional Commercial Manager, Nagpur) imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on June 7, 1996. A departmental appeal was also dismissed on July 30, 1997.
The appellant approached the CAT, which allowed his application on March 21, 2002, quashing the dismissal and directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Central Railway challenged this order in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench). By its final judgment on September 21, 2017, the High Court allowed the Railway’s writ petition, set aside the CAT’s decision, and upheld the dismissal.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the delinquent employee passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record, who then preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Submissions of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellants (legal heirs) argued that the High Court’s judgment was “legally unsustainable” as it reversed a “well-reasoned order” by the CAT. It was submitted that the penalty order was a “mere mechanical reproduction” of the Enquiry Officer’s report without independent application of mind.
A key contention was the “denial of a fair hearing,” as the primary complainant, Hemant Kumar, “was not examined during the enquiry and his statement was never subjected to cross-examination.” It was further argued that the other two passenger-complainants, Dinesh Choudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal, “did not support the case of the respondents” and their statements were “perversely construed.”
Regarding the other charges, the appellants argued that possession of Rs. 1254 was not misconduct as “there was no rule prescribing a ceiling on the cash a TTE could carry,” and the amount was duly deposited. The charges of failing to recover fare difference and forgery were contended to be unproved, citing the non-production of the relevant receipt book and the absence of a handwriting expert’s opinion.
Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for the respondents (Central Railway) submitted that the dismissal was a “reasoned and speaking order” passed after giving the appellant adequate opportunity of defence and adhering to the principles of natural justice. It was argued that the CAT “ought not to have interfered” with the findings and that the “non-examination of Hemant Kumar does not render the enquiry against the appellant as invalid.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court proceeded to analyze each of the charges levelled against the appellant.
On the charge of illegal gratification: The Court noted that the passenger Hemant Kumar “was not examined.” Regarding the other two passengers, the Court found they “have not supported the charges against the appellant.”
The judgment observed that passenger Dinesh Choudhary “categorically says that the appellant had not demanded any illegal gratification.” It also found the statement of passenger Rajkumar Jaiswal to be “full of contradiction” and “contrary to the charge itself” (as he deposed to paying Rs. 120, while the charge mentioned Rs. 50 and the receipt was for Rs. 45). The Court held that the Enquiry Officer had relied on the statement of Hemant Kumar “even though he was not even examined during enquiry and was thus not subjected to cross-examination.”
On the charge of excess cash: The Supreme Court noted that the appellant deposited the said amount in Railway Sundry Accounts and that “no official document had been placed before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate this charge.” The bench agreed with the CAT’s reasoning for not accepting a Railway Board circular dated 22.08.1997, as it “was issued after the date of the incident.”
On the charge of failing to recover fare difference: The Court found this charge was held proved “merely on the basis of the statement of the Vigilance Inspector N.C. Dhankode.” It noted this was done while “ignoring the fact that the passenger… has not been examined and nor the excess fare receipt book… has been produced before the Enquiry Officer.”
On the charge of forgery: The Supreme Court observed that “No evidence has been adduced to prove the charge” and that the CAT had noted the “alleged forged signature has not been sent to handwriting expert.”
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that “all the charges have not been found to be proved conclusively against the appellant.”
The bench affirmed the CAT’s decision, stating, “The High Court has failed to take note of the legal position that when the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse basing on completely misleading of the materials produced before the Enquiry Officer, CAT was fully justified in setting aside the order of penalty.”
Noting that the “incident happened on 31.05.1988, that is more than 37 years back” and that the employee has passed away, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the order of the CAT.
The Court directed that “all the consequential monetary benefits including pensionary benefits shall be released in favour of the appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased employee within a period of three months from today.” The appeal was, accordingly, allowed.
