2009 Supreme(SC) 1405

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
Southern Railway Officers Assn. & Others
Versus
Union of India & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4835 - 4839 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4894 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4895 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5074 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5074 OF 2007 And CIVIL APPEAL NO..5094 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18948 of 2007)
Decided on : 04-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
Application of Article 311(2), Second Proviso, Clause (b) of the Constitution for dispensing with departmental enquiry discussed.
Appeal being post-decisional hearing to delinquent appellate authority is entitled to consider all relevant material at the time of appeal.
In cases like the instant one, prompt action is imperative.
Acquittal of delinquent criminal case is not a bar on disciplinary action and punishment.
Giving undertaking before High Court to comply with its order does not amount to waiving the right to appeal.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 311(2), Second Proviso, Clause (b) r/w Rule 14(ii), Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968– Dispensing with enquiry – Reasons recorded being that the delinquent with their associates threatened, intimidated and terrorized all the officers – They created atmosphere of violence, general indiscipline and insubordination – Disciplinary authority held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry – No infirmity. (Para 25, 26, 27)

       AIR 1985 SC 1416; (1985) 4 SCC 252; (1996) 10 SCC 659; (1993) 4 SCC 269; (2003) 4 SCC 579 – Relied upon

       (b) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 – Rule 18 and 19 – Appeal providing for post-decisional hearing to delinquent – Delinquent must have taken all defences – Appellate authority taking all materials including posters pasted in workshop exhorting workers to assault Shri S.M,. Krishnan not for proving misconduct but for examining validity of dispensing with enquiry – No infirmity. (Para 27, 28)

       (2003) 4 SCC 579 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 311(2), Second Proviso, Clause (b) r/w Rule 14(ii), Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 – Disciplinary authority dispensing with enquiry – In the fact situation immediate action was absolutely essential – Not doing so would have sent wrong message among the workers – Action taken promptly, not in haste as opined by High Court. (Para 29)

       (2005) 7 SCC 764 – Relied upon

       (d) Service law – Punishment for misconduct – Delinquents dismissed – Order based on all relevant materials – No irrelevant fact not germane for decision taken into consideration – Acquittal of delinquent criminal case also taken into account – Such acquittal not a bar on disciplinary action and punishment. (Para 32, 33)

       (2003) 9 SCC 75; (2006) 13 SCC 314; (2006) 13 SCC 581 – Relied upon

       (e) Waiver – Union of India giving undertaking before High Court to comply with its order – Does not amount to waiving its right to appeal. (Para 37)

       (1998) 6 SCC 507 – Relied upon

       1989 Supp (2) SCC 655 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       K. Babu Rajendran, L. Arputharaj, G. Lakshmanan, V.S. Chandran and P. Manoharan, had been working in Carriage and Wagon Workshop of the South Eastern Railway Administration of Union of India.

       One S.M. Krishnan was a Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Carriage and Wagon, Golden Rock Workshop in the South Eastern Railway Administration. He was the disciplinary authority of the workmen working in the said workshop. He superannuated on 31st January, 2004. He was to go to his native place. He was to board train from Tiruchirappalli Railway station for Chennai. Some officers had come to platform No.4 of the said Railway station to see him off.

       After disciplinary proceeding L. Arputharaj was dismissed from service. However on a revision punishment of dismissal was set aside and he was directed to be posted as Technician Grade III at the bottom of the scale with non recurring effect for a period of three years.

       The delinquent employees came to the railway station. They abused and assaulted Shri S.M. Krishnan. He and his family members were threatened to be killed if he goes to Chennai. An atmosphere of violence, general indiscipline and insubordination was prevailing at the railway station. The other officers were also threatened, intimidated and terrorized. The matter was reported to the Trichy Police station. On the basis of a statement made in this behalf, a First Information Report was recorded.

       K. Babu Rajendran was arrested on the same day while others were arrested after two weeks.

       On the same day a notice of dismissal from service had been issued against all the delinquent employees.

       By separate orders, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeals not only upon taking into consideration the documents which were available with the disciplinary authority but also the newspaper clippings and the confidential reports of the employees of GOC shop.

       Revision applications were filed thereagainst by the delinquent employees except L. Arputharaj.

       In the meantime the delinquent employees were acquitted from the criminal charges.

       The revisional authority, however, while dismissing the revision application of K. Babu Rajendran, allowed in part the revision applications of other three delinquents.

       All the five delinquent employees filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal against the said orders.

       The Tribunal while declining to interfere with the orders passed by the revisional authority in the cases of three employees, namely -P. Manoharan, G. Lakshmanan and V. S. Chandran, the orders of dismissal passed against L. Arputharaj and K. Babu Rajendran were set aside.

       Both the parties preferred writ applications thereagainst. By reason of a common judgment and order dated 20th June, 2007, the writ applications filed by Union of India were dismissed and those of the aforementioned three delinquent employees were allowed.

       All the delinquent employees were ordered to be reinstated in service in their original position, with all service benefits and back wages, from 31.1.2004, as if they were continuing in their respective positions without any break.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result:

       Appeals allowed.