IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal from service – When findings of Enquiry Officer were perverse basing on completely misleading of materials produced before Enquiry Officer, CAT was fully justified in setting aside order of penalty.

JUDGMENT

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 Administrative Tribunal [For short, ‘CAT’], 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, 1966 [For short, ‘1966 Rules’] 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.

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.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that the impugned judgment of High Court is legally uns