Service Law — Departmental Proceedings — Proof of Charges — Standard of Proof — Perversity of Findings — Interference by Tribunal — Allegation of demanding illegal gratification from passengers during surprise check — Primary complainant not examined and his statement relied upon without affording delinquent employee opportunity of cross-examination — Other complainants did not support charges; their statements misconstrued — Charge thus based on inadmissible and contradictory evidence — Held, findings perverse; no cogent material to sustain charge.
(Paras 5, 7, 12, 17.1)
Service Law — Excess Cash Allegation — Possession of Rs. 1254/- excess cash — No rule prescribing ceiling on amount TTE could carry — Amount deposited in Railway sundry accounts — No allegation of misappropriation proved — Circular relied on by department post-dates the incident — Charge unsustainable.
(Paras 14, 17.2)
Service Law — Failure to Recover Fare Difference — Proof — Passenger not examined, receipt book not produced — Charge held proved solely on vigilance inspector’s statement — Unsupported and insufficient evidence — Cannot sustain penalty.
(Paras 14.1, 17.3)
Service Law — Forgery Allegation — Handwriting Expert — Alleged extension of validity of duty card pass by forging signature of official — No handwriting expert opinion — Even Enquiry Officer did not conclusively hold charge proved — Cannot be relied upon to punish.
(Paras 14.2, 17.4)
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Scope — When findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse, based on completely misleading material, Tribunal was justified in setting aside penalty — High Court erred in interfering with well-reasoned CAT order.
(Paras 17–18)
Relief — Incident of 1988 — Employee expired during pendency — Order of CAT restored — All consequential monetary and pensionary benefits to legal heirs within three months.
(Para 18)
Result: Appeal allowed.2025 INSC 1257
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 1 of 10
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13017 OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.30819 OF 2025)
[@ DIARY NO. 19424 OF 2019]
V.M. SAUDAGAR (DEAD)
THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL
MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY
& ANR.
…. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Delay of 519 days is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present Appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
21.09.2017 in Writ Petition No. 2461 of 2002 passed by High Court of
Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench), whereby the High Court had
reversed the judgment dated 21.03.2002 passed by the Central
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 2 of 10
Administrative Tribunal1, Mumbai Bench setting aside the dismissal order
of the appellant (now deceased) and directing his reinstatement.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. At the relevant time, the appellant was serving as a Travelling Ticket
Examiner (TTE) in the Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31.05.1988, while he
was on duty in the Second Class Sleeper Coach of the 39-Down Dadar–
Nagpur Express, a surprise check was conducted by the Railway vigilance
team.
5. It was alleged that appellant had demanded illegal gratification from
passengers, which included, Rs. 25/- from Hemant Kumar, unrefunded
Rs. 20/- from Dinesh Choudhary, and unrefunded Rs.5/- from Rajkumar
Jaiswal, for the allotment of berths. Further charges against the appellant
included him being found in possession of excess cash of Rs.1254/-
(excluding personal and railway cash), his failure to recover Rs.18/- as
fare difference from a passenger (for Ticket No.444750), and the forging of
a duty card pass by extending its validity without authority.
6. Basing the surprise check, a charge-sheet dated 03.07.1989 was
issued against the appellant under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,
1 For short, ‘CAT’
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 3 of 10
19662 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. It was alleged
that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification from the passengers.
Thus, it was alleged that the appellant had exhibited lack of integrity and
devotion to duty under Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of 1966 Rules.
7. During the enquiry, the complainants/passengers - Dinesh
Choudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal along with Vigilance Inspector N.C.
Dhankode were examined. However, another complainant - Hemant
Kumar was not examined. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on
31.12.1995 to hold that all charges were proved against the appellant.
Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Divisional Commercial
Manager, Nagpur, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 07.06.1996
imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against the appellant.
Aggrieved by the dismissal from service, the appellant preferred a
departmental appeal which was dismissed on 30.07.1997.
8. The appellant thereafter approached CAT, Mumbai Bench, Camp
Nagpur, by filing Original Application No. 431 of 1997 which was allowed
vide order dated 21.03.2002 quashing the dismissal order against the
appellant and directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
2 For short, ‘1966 Rules’
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 4 of 10
9. Challenging the order passed by CAT, the respondents herein
approached the High Court by preferring a writ petition. By an interim
order, the High Court stayed the CAT’s direction for reinstatement of the
appellant and under the impugned final judgment dated 21.09.2017, the
High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents herein
and had accordingly set aside the CAT’s decision dated 21.03.2002 and
upheld the dismissal of the appellant from service. During pendency of
the writ petition before High Court, the delinquent employee/appellant
passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record who have now
preferred the present Appeal.
10. According to the High Court, the Enquiry Officer’s findings were
supported by evidence and the charges were duly proved against the
appellant. Therefore, CAT had wrongly interfered with the findings
recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which was duly affirmed by the
Appellate Authority and that judicial review could not be exercised in such
matter.
SUBMISSION OF PARTIES
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 5 of 10
12. The learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that the
impugned judgment of High Court is legally unsustainable as it reverses a
well-reasoned order passed by CAT. The penalty order was a mere
mechanical reproduction of the Enquiry Officer’s report without any
independent application of mind. It was vehemently argued that the
primary complainant-Hemant Kumar, whose written statement formed the
basis of the charge of illegal gratification, was not examined during the
enquiry and his statement was never subjected to cross-examination.
Therefore, placing reliance on such a material, without affording the
appellant an opportunity of testing it, constituted denial of a fair hearing.
13. It was next submitted on behalf of the appellant(s) that the other two
complainants/passengers, namely Dinesh Choudhary and Rajkumar
Jaiswal, did not support the case of the respondents and, in fact,
corroborated the appellant’s version. However, their statements were
perversely construed to sustain the charge against him.
14. On the second charge, learned counsel argued that the possession
of Rs.1254/- on 31.05.1988 was not misconduct, as there was no rule
prescribing a ceiling on the cash a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) could
carry. It is further submitted that the amount was duly deposited in the
Railway Sundry Accounts and no allegation of misappropriation was made
or proved.
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 6 of 10
14.1 On third charge, the learned counsel for appellant(s) submitted that
the alleged failure to recover a fare difference of Rs.18/- from a passenger
(for Ticket No.444750) remained unproved as the relevant receipt book was
not produced and the necessary witnesses were not examined.
14.2 On the fourth charge of forgery in relation to Duty Card Pass No.
030545, learned counsel submitted that the same was unsupported, as no
handwriting expert opinion was obtained and even the Enquiry Officer did
not conclusively hold it proved.
15. In light of the above, learned counsel submitted that all the charges
against the appellant remain unproved and prayed for setting aside of
impugned judgment of High Court.
16. Per contra, on merits, learned ASG for the respondents submitted
that the order of dismissal was a reasoned and speaking order passed after
giving the appellant adequate opportunity of defence, strictly adhering to
the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the findings
reached by the Enquiry Officer were supported by reasons and the
Disciplinary Authority, after due application of mind, imposed the penalty
of dismissal. Therefore, CAT ought not to have interfered with the findings.
In respect of non-examination of Hemant Kumar, it is argued that the
same does not render the enquiry against the appellant as invalid.
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 7 of 10
17. Let us look at each of the charges levelled against appellant and the
findings reached by the Courts below.
17.1 In respect of the first charge of demanding illegal gratification from
three passengers for allotment of berths in the train, it is to be seen that
one of the passengers, namely Hemant Kumar, was not examined and the
other two passengers, namely Dinesh Choudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal
have not supported the charges against the appellant. CAT had
reproduced their statements in its order. In response to a specific question
as to whether the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.20 from
Dinesh Choudhary for allotment of berths, the witness (Dinesh
Choudhary) categorically says that the appellant had not demanded any
illegal gratification and that the appellant had categorically told that he
would return the balance amount and would give a receipt afterwards as
he was to attend 2-3 Coaches. In reply to another question, he again
reiterated that the appellant never demanded any illegal gratification.
Similar is the case with another complainant - Rajkumar Jaiswal whose
statement is full of contradiction inasmuch as the charge is of paying
Rs.50; however, the receipt issued by the appellant for the same was of
Rs.45. But Rajkumar Jaiswal deposed that he had made payment of
Rs.120 to the appellant. Thus, his statement is contrary to the charge
itself. It is also to be seen that the Enquiry Officer relied upon the
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 8 of 10
statement of Hemant Kumar even though he was not even examined
during enquiry and was thus not subjected to cross-examination.
17.2 In respect of the second charge the appellant being found in
possession of excess undeclared cash amounting to Rs.1254/- (excluding
his own private cash), it is important to bear in mind that the appellant is
said to have deposited the said amount in the Railway Sundry Accounts
on the date of incident. Moreover, no official document had been placed
before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate this charge. Before CAT, the
respondents had placed reliance on a circular dated 22.08.1997 issued by
the Railway Board which was not accepted by CAT on the ground that the
same was issued after the date of the incident. We are in agreement with
CAT’s reasoning for not accepting the said circular.
17.3 The third charge against the appellant was that on 31.05.1988, he
failed to recover a difference of fare of Rs.18/- from a passenger bearing
Ticket No. 444750 travelling on berth no. 52 from Dadar to Nagpur. This
amount is said to have been recovered later in the presence of the vigilance
team. This charge was found proved merely on the basis of the statement
of the Vigilance Inspector - N.C. Dhankode ignoring the fact that the
passenger bearing the said ticket number has not been examined and nor
the excess fare receipt book highlighting about the amount of Rs.18/- has
been produced before the Enquiry Officer.
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 9 of 10
17.4 The fourth charge against the appellant was that he had forged the
signature to extend the validity of his duty card pass no.030545 which
was valid till 31.03.1986. However, the appellant is said to have forged
the signature of G.S. Topre, Office Superintendent Pass Section, Nagpur,
to extend the validity of his card first up to 29.03.1987 and then further
up to 31.03.1988. This charge was found not proved by the Enquiry
Officer. No evidence has been adduced to prove the charge of forgery and
only the authenticity of the pass has been verified by the Enquiry Officer
with the statement of the S.M. Gole, then Office Superintendent Pass
Section. CAT noted that even the alleged forged signature has not been
sent to handwriting expert.
18. In the above view of the matter, all the charges have not been found
to be proved conclusively against the appellant and CAT, on the basis of
the material on record, had rightly interfered with the penalty of dismissal
from service against the appellant. 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. The incident happened on 31.05.1988, that is more than 37 years
back. In the meanwhile, the delinquent employee has passed away.
Therefore, while setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court
Diary No.19424 of 2019 Page 10 of 10
and restoring the order of CAT, we direct 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. Ordered accordingly.
19. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 27, 2025
