Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1142

2009(5) Supreme 86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Gyan Chand Chattar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4174 of 2003
Decided on : 28-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :SWA. Qadri, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, A.K. Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Respondents(s):Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta, Ms. Reema Sharma, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
An enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.

Headnote:Service Law – Respondent-employee employed in Western Railway was served a charge sheet containing 6 charges that he traveled in the train in First Class though he was not entitled to travel in that class; refused to arrange payment of certain amount to employees against bills; while on duty on 24.11.1979 travelling in 1st Class compartment of the Train, played cards with RPF Rakshaks; that on 24.11.1979 the train in which he was traveling and wanted commission of 1% for payment of pay allowance to the was detained by agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of their pay allowance, he acted extremely irresponsibly and made no attempt to convince them about his difficulties; refused to receive “Control Message”/”Memo” from the superior officer employees – Disciplinary authority passed order of punishment removing respondent from service – On appeal punishment of removal from service was reduced to reversion of respondent to the lower post of clerk – Application thereagainst – Allowed with a direction to disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order imposing minor punishment – Letters Patent Appeal –Dismissed – Appeal – Evidence on record showed that initiation of enquiry against respondent appeared to be outcome of anguish of superior officers as there had been agitation by Railway staff demanding payment of pay and allowances and they detained the train illegally– Enquiry Officer took into consideration non-existing material and failed to consider relevant material and finding of all facts recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eyes of law– There could be no case of substantial misdemeanour against respondent on either of charges except Charge No.6 on which major penalty could be imposed– Charge No. 6 was totally vague and no enquiry could be conducted against respondent on such a charge. It was basically a case of no evidence on any charge except Charge Nos. 4 & 5–Appeal disposed of directing appellant to pay 50% of the pay and allowances without interest till respondent reached the age of superannuation and arrears of retiral benefits with 9% interest. (Paras 29 to 35)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Respondent-employee while employed in Western Railway was served a charge sheet containing 6 charges. Disciplinary authority on said charges passed order of punishment removing respondent from service. On appeal, punishment of removal from service was reduced to reversion of respondent to the lower post of clerk. Application thereagainst was allowed with a direction to disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order imposing minor punishment. Letters Patent Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Evidence on record showed that initiation of enquiry against respondent appeared to be outcome of anguish of superior officers as there had been agitation by Railway staff demanding payment of pay and allowances and they detained the train illegally. Enquiry Officer took into consideration non-existing material and failed to consider relevant material and finding of all facts recorded by him could not be sustained in the eyes of law. There could be no case of substantial misdemeanour against respondent on either of charges except Charge No.6 on which major penalty could be imposed. Charge No. 6 was totally vague and no enquiry could be conducted against respondent on such a charge. It was basically a case of no evidence on any charge except Charge Nos. 4 & 5.Hence Appeal was disposed of directing appellant to pay 50% of the pay and allowances without interest till respondent reached the age of superannuation and arrears of retiral benefits with 9% interest.
       Result : Appeal disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

An enquiry against a person must strictly adhere to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, requiring charges to be specific, definite, and detailed; no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges (!) .
In cases involving corruption, such as Charge No. 6 regarding a demand for a 1% commission, the charge was found to be totally vague and based on hearsay statements, rendering any enquiry conducted on such a charge unsustainable (!) (!) .
The initiation of the enquiry appeared to be the outcome of the anguish of superior officers due to an illegal agitation by railway staff detaining the train, rather than genuine misconduct by the respondent (!) .
The Enquiry Officer failed to consider relevant material and took into account non-existing material, making his findings of fact unsustainable in the eyes of the law (!) .
Charge No. 1 regarding travel in First Class was not legally proved because the Enquiry Officer failed to examine whether the respondent was entitled to travel in that class given the circumstances of his duty (!) .
Charge No. 2 regarding refusal to arrange payment was not misconduct as the respondent's explanation that a Gazetted Officer was required to witness payments over Rs. 500/- was supported by departmental circulars (!) .
Charge No. 3 regarding playing cards was not proved as the evidence only showed the respondent played cards during the journey, not during the actual disbursement of pay and allowances (!) .
Charges No. 4 and No. 5 were only partly proved to the extent that the respondent refused to accept a "Control Message" or "Memo" from a superior officer, but even then, a major penalty could not be imposed (!) .
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing the appellant authorities to pay 50% of the pay and allowances without interest until the respondent reached the age of superannuation, along with arrears of retirement benefits with 9% interest (!) .

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.25 of 1983 by which while affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.12.1982 passed in Special Civil Application No.101 of 1982 allowed the cross objections filed by the respondent-employee and set aside the order giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of minor punishment on two charges.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-employee Gyan Chand Chattar was appointed in the Western Railway as Shroff in the Department of Pay and Cash in the scale of Rs.260-400 w.e.f. 8.2.1971 vide official letter dated 8.2.1971. He was thereafter posted as Cashier in the year 1977 in the pay-scale of Rs.330-480. He was served a charge sheet dated 8.4.1980 containing 6 charges that he traveled in the train in First Class on 24.11.1979 though he was not entitled to travel in that class; refused to arrange payment of certain amount to the employees against bills dated 12.11.1979; 16.11.1979 and 21.11.1979; while on duty on 24.11.1979 travelling in 1st Class compartment of the Train, played cards with RPF Rakshaks; that on 24.11.1979 the train in which he was traveling was detained by the agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of their pay allowance, he acted extremely irresponsibly and made no attempt to convince them about his difficulties; refused to receive “Control Message”/”Memo” from the superior officer and wanted commission of 1% for payment of pay allowance to the employees.

3. During the course of enquiry both parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted its report dated 22.4.1981 to the disciplinary authority holding all six charges proved against the said respondent-employee. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and considering the reply to the enquiry report submitted by the delinquent employee, passed the order of punishment dated 2.5.1981 removing the respondent from service. His appeal against the said order was allowed partly by the statutory appellate authority - Financial adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay vide order dated 10.11.1981 reducing the punishment of removal from service to reversion of the respondent to the lower post of clerk, Grade-II in the scale of Rs.260-400(R) until he was found fit by the competent authority for being considered for the cashier post in the scale of Rs.330-560 (R).

4. Being aggrieved the respondent-employee challenged the order of punishment by filing Special Civil Application No.101 of 1982 in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 27.12.1982 wherein the learned Single Judge after appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that only charge which could be found proved against the respondent-employee was not receiving the memo of superiors as alleged in charge numbers 4 & 5 against him. All other charges were found unproved. Learned Single Judge issued a direction to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order imposing minor punishment on the said proved charge nos.4 & 5 for not accepting the “memo” sent by the superiors.

5. Being aggrieved the Union of India filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.25 of 1983 challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2002. However, the Division Bench allowed the counter objections filed by the respondent to the extent that the direction given by the learned Single Judge to impose minor penalty on charge numbers 4 & 5 was also set aside. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench directed that respondent would be entitled to get 50% of the back-wage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1142

2009(5) Supreme 86SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.Union of India & Ors. — AppellantsversusGyan Chand Chattar — RespondentCivil Appeal No. 4174 of 2003Decided on : 28-05-2009

Cases Referred (9)

2009(5) Supreme 86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Gyan Chand Chattar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4174 of 2003
Decided on : 28-05-2009