1. Departmental enquiry and dismissal of a railway employee for illegal gratification, possession of excess cash, fare recovery failure, and forgery under Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1855
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
V.M. Saudagar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13017 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 30819 OF 2025) [@ Diary No. 19424 of 2019]
Decided On : 27-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : M/s Lambat And Associates, AOR Mr. Kishor Lambat, Adv. Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Adv. Ms. Suja Joshi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Ms. Sairica S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : M/s Lambat And Associates, AOR Mr. Kishor Lambat, Adv. Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Adv. Ms. Suja Joshi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Ms. Sairica S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Important Points
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.
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.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
RAILWAY SERVICES CONDUCT RULES: R.3(1)(i), R.3(1)(ii)
Headnote
Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 – Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) – Dismissal from service – No evidence has been adduced to prove the charge of forgery – All charges have not been found to be proved conclusively against appellant – CAT, on the basis of material on record, had rightly interfered with penalty of dismissal from service against appellant – 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 – Incident happened more than 37 years back – In the meanwhile, delinquent employee has passed away – Order passed by CAT restored with all consequential monetary benefits including pensionary benefits. (Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal challenges 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 High Court had reversed judgment dated 21.03.2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench setting aside dismissal order of appellant (now deceased) and directing his reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
All consequential monetary benefits including pensionary benefits shall be released in favour of appellants who are legal heirs of deceased employee within a period of three months from today.
Result : Appeal allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to dismissal based on denial of fair hearing due to non-examination of primary witness, lack of evidence, and perverse construction of witness statements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Judicial review is justified to set aside penalty orders when the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and based on misleading materials. (Para 18 )
4. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; CAT order restored; direction to release all consequential monetary and pensionary benefits to legal heirs. (Para 18 , 19 )
5. Does the non-examination of a primary witness whose statement forms the basis of a charge invalidate a departmental enquiry?
Yes, if the primary witness is not examined and the accused is not given an opportunity to cross-examine them, relying on such material constitutes a denial of a fair hearing and renders the findings perverse. (Para 12 )
6. When can a court interfere with the findings of a Disciplinary Authority in a departmental enquiry?
A court can exercise judicial review and set aside the penalty if the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, based on a complete misleading of the materials produced, or unsupported by evidence. (Para 18 )
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
