Enquiry Officer's Findings Were Perverse: Supreme Court Upholds CAT Order Quashing Railway TTE’s Dismissal

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the final judgment of the Bombay High Court, whereby the High Court had reversed the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, setting aside the dismissal order of the appellant (now deceased) and directing his reinstatement.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “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.”

M/s Lambat And Associates represented the Appellant, while ASGVikramjeet Banerjee represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was serving as a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) in the Central Railway, Nagpur. On May 31, 1988, while he was on duty in the Second Class Sleeper Coach, a surprise check was conducted by the Railway vigilance team. It was alleged that appellant had demanded illegal gratification from passengers, which 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 and the forging of a duty card pass by extending its validity without authority. A charge-sheet was issued against the appellant under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him.

It was alleged that the appellant had exhibited a lack of integrity and devotion to duty under Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,1966. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against the appellant. The appellant’s departmental appeal was dismissed. The appellant filed an Original Application before the CAT, which was allowed, and his reinstatement was ordered. Challenging the order passed by the CAT, the respondents approached the High Court. The High Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant from service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the delinquent employee/appellant passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record, who approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

In respect of the first charge of demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for allotment of berths in the train, the Bench found that one of the passengers was not examined, and the other two passengers did not support the charges against the appellant. In response to a specific question as to whether the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs 20 from one of the passengers for allotment of berths, the witness categorically stated that the appellant had not demanded any illegal gratification. Similar was the case with another complainant whose statement was full of contradictions.

Coming to the allegation of the appellant being found in possession of excess undeclared cash amounting to Rs 1254 (excluding his own private cash), the Bench noted that the appellant was said to have deposited the said amount in the Railway Sundry Accounts on the date of the 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 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. The Bench was in agreement with CAT’s reasoning for not accepting the said circular.

On the charge that the appellant failed to recover a fare difference of Rs 18 from a passenger, it was noticed that the amount was said to have been recovered later in the presence of the vigilance team. The fourth charge against the appellant was that he had forged the signature of an Official to extend the validity of his card, but the same was not proved.

Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restoring the order of the CAT, the Bench directed all the consequential monetary benefits, including pensionary benefits, to be released in favour of the appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased employee within a period of three months.

Cause Title: V.M. Saudagar (Dead) v. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1257)

Appearance

Appellant: M/s Lambat And Associates, Advocates Kishor Lambat, Kashmira Lambat, Suja Joshi

Respondent: ASGVikramjeet Banerjee, Advocates Sairica S. Raju, Rahul Mishra, AOR Amrish Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment