Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment that had upheld dismissal from service and restored the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had quashed the dismissal of a railway employee. The Court held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse, unsupported by evidence, and based on untested material, particularly because a key complainant was never examined, and the remaining material did not support the charges.
The Court noted that “judicial review is justified when the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on completely misleading materials”, emphasising that the High Court erred in disregarding this settled position. The Court accordingly directed that all consequential monetary and pensionary benefits be released to the deceased employee’s legal heirs within three months.
Facts
The appellant served as a Travelling Ticket Examiner with the Central Railway. During a surprise vigilance check conducted on 31 May 1988 on a Dadar–Nagpur train, allegations were made that he had demanded illegal gratification from passengers, failed to return excess amounts, and possessed unexplained cash. Additional allegations included failure to recover fare difference and forging the validity on an official duty pass.
A charge sheet was issued under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, and a departmental enquiry followed. The complainants were examined except one, whose statement was heavily relied upon without cross-examination. The Enquiry Officer ultimately held the charges proved, resulting in an order of dismissal in 1996, which the departmental appellate authority later affirmed.
The appellant challenged the dismissal before CAT, which found the charges unproven and the enquiry flawed, and accordingly directed reinstatement. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, reversed CAT’s findings and upheld dismissal. During the pendency of the writ petition, the employee passed away, and his legal heirs continued the challenge before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing CAT’s well-reasoned order despite contradictions in evidence and procedural lapses in the enquiry.
- Whether charges of illegal gratification, excess cash, non-recovery of fare difference, and alleged forgery were proved in accordance with principles of natural justice.
- Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer, based on untested and contradictory material, warranted judicial review.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the High Court’s judgment was legally untenable as it overturned a carefully reasoned CAT decision that had correctly noted grave irregularities in the enquiry. It was submitted that the primary complainant whose written statement formed the basis of the allegation of bribery was never examined and the appellant was denied the opportunity to test his statement through cross-examination. This alone rendered reliance on his statement impermissible.
The petitioner also contended that the other two complainants had not supported allegations of illegal gratification; in fact, one categorically denied the allegation, while contradictions in the other’s testimony made it unreliable. It was further argued that possession of excess cash was not per se misconduct as no rule prescribed any ceiling, and the amount had been duly deposited into official accounts. On the remaining charges, the petitioner pointed out the absence of requisite documents and witnesses to prove fare difference, and highlighted that the alleged forgery was unsupported as no handwriting expert’s opinion was obtained. Thus, all charges lacked evidentiary support, warranting restoration of CAT’s findings.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that the dismissal order was passed after a full-fledged and fair enquiry, and that the findings were reasoned, based on material available, and supported by evidence. It was contended that all procedural safeguards had been adhered to, and the disciplinary authority had independently applied its mind. They submitted that non-examination of one complainant did not invalidate the enquiry, especially when other witnesses, including the vigilance inspector, had testified. It was further argued that CAT overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence and interfering with factual findings which are ordinarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority and not subject to judicial review. Therefore, the High Court had correctly restored the dismissal order.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited but permissible when findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on materials that should not have been relied upon. The Court emphasised that documentary or oral evidence which is not subjected to cross-examination cannot be the foundation of guilt in a departmental enquiry.
The Court also noted that when witnesses fail to corroborate the charge, or their statements contradict the allegation itself, reliance on such statements violates the requirement of fairness and reasoned decision-making. Failure to produce essential documents, such as the receipt book for fare difference, or to prove allegations through expert opinion where necessary, further weakened the enquiry.
Therefore, the Court held that the disciplinary authority and the High Court had ignored vital evidentiary shortcomings, while CAT had correctly appreciated the deficiencies in the enquiry process.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment references internal reasoning based on established judicial principles applied in similar contexts, though no external cases are cited within the text itself. However, the Supreme Court relied on well-settled doctrines from service jurisprudence:
1. Judicial Review Permissible for Perversity
The principle that courts may interfere when findings are based on “completely misleading materials” or are perverse was reaffirmed. This doctrine has been consistently applied to ensure fairness in departmental enquiries.
2. Necessity of Cross-Examination
The Court reiterated that statements relied upon without examination or cross-examination cannot form the basis of guilt. This principle underpins the right to a fair hearing.
3. CAT’s Jurisdiction to Interfere
The judgment recognises that when an enquiry suffers from procedural irregularity or evidentiary infirmity, CAT is fully justified in setting aside the penalty.
These foundational principles formed the basis for the Court’s conclusion that CAT’s reasoning was sound and the High Court’s interference was unwarranted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court meticulously re-evaluated each charge:
Illegal Gratification
Two complainants did not support the allegation. One denied any demand for illegal gratification outright, stating that the appellant assured return of excess change and issuance of a receipt later. The second complainant’s version was inconsistent with the charge itself. The third complainant, whose statement was relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, was never examined. Reliance on such untested material was impermissible.
Excess Cash
The amount found was duly deposited in official accounts. No rule limiting permissible cash was produced. The circular relied upon by the respondents was issued years after the incident and could not be applied retrospectively.
Failure to Recover Fare Difference
This charge rested solely on the vigilance inspector’s testimony, without examining the concerned passenger or producing the crucial receipt book. The Court found this insufficient.
Alleged Forgery
Even the Enquiry Officer did not conclusively prove the charge. No expert opinion was obtained and no evidence demonstrated that the appellant forged the duty pass.
The Court held that none of the charges were proved conclusively, the enquiry suffered from legal infirmities, and CAT had rightly intervened. The High Court overlooked these findings, warranting reversal.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that:
- The findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse, unsupported, and based on inadmissible material.
- CAT was justified in setting aside dismissal.
- The High Court erred by interfering with CAT’s well-reasoned findings.
- The employee passed away during proceedings, and more than 37 years had elapsed since the incident.
- The order of CAT stands restored, and all consequential monetary and pensionary benefits must be released to the legal heirs of the deceased employee within three months.
The appeal was allowed.
Implications
- The judgment strengthens procedural safeguards in departmental enquiries.
- It reinforces that cross-examination and proper evidentiary foundation are essential to sustaining charges of bribery or misconduct.
- The ruling clarifies that courts will intervene where findings are unsupported or perverse, ensuring fairness for government employees.
- It places responsibility on disciplinary authorities to ensure enquiries are thorough and not based on assumptions or unexamined statements.
