Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3337
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
S. Singaravelu
Versus
General Manager, Southern Railways, Chennai & Another
W.A. No. 1394 of 2008
Decided On : 09-08-2010
For the Appellant :Balan Haridoss, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel, Assisted by V.G. Suresh Kumar, for R. Vellaichamy, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction in departmental proceedings is limited to reviewing the decision-making process, ensuring fair treatment, and determining compliance with statutory rules and natural justice. The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the disciplinary authority's judgment in such proceedings.
Headnote:
Misappropriation - Railway Employee - Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 9(13)(1)(a), Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii), Rule 3(1)(iii) - The judgment discusses the appellant's challenge against the order confirming the award of compulsory retirement due to misappropriation of funds. The court analyzed the evidence and upheld the decision based on the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, specifically Rule 9(13)(1)(a) and Rule 3(1)(i)-(iii). The court found that the appellant's actions violated these rules, leading to the dismissal of the writ appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a railway employee, was charged with misappropriating funds by making false entries in railway records. Despite the appellant's denial and explanation, the Enquiry Officer and Industrial Tribunal found the charges proved, leading to compulsory retirement. The appellant challenged this decision, alleging denial of fair hearing and violation of statutory regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry was conducted fairly, with the appellant given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The court upheld the decision based on the overwhelming evidence against the appellant, concluding that the charges were proved. The court's jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the decision-making process, and it found no merit in the appellant's contentions.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's denial of fair hearing, violation of statutory regulations, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges of misappropriation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, specifically Rule 9(13)(1)(a) and Rule 3(1)(i)-(iii). The court emphasized that its jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the decision-making process and found that the appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the award of compulsory retirement based on the misappropriation charges. The court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and ruled in favor of the respondent railway authorities.
K.K.SASIDHARAN , J.
The appellant challenges the order dated 13.07.2007 in W.P.No.13196/2001 confirming the award dated 06.06.2001 in I.A.No.485/2001 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai. Facts in brief :-
2. The appellant was an employee under the Southern Railway at Madras. While he was functioning as clerk, he was issued with a charge memo dated 23.07.1986 alleging that he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,070/- during December 1984 by making false entries in the railway records to appear as if he has refunded the said amount on the basis of a cancellation slip. The appellant submitted his explanation on 27.06.1987 denying the charges levelled against him. According to the appellant, he was on duty in the counter on 15.12.1984 and the refund was made based on cancellation endorsed by the cancelling Clerk accompanied by a refund application. Refund was made only to the person who presented the same across the counter.
3. The explanation submitted by the appellant was not found to be convincing and as such, the first respondent initiated departmental proceedings against him. The matter was also referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
4. During the course of enquiry, as many as ten witnesses were examined and 28 documents were marked. Witnesses were cross examined by the appellant. However, no defence evidence was adduced on the side of the appellant.
5. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the charges framed against the appellant were proved.
Accordingly, second show cause notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant submitted his version and on a consideration of the same, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully before the Appellate Authority.
6. The matter was taken to the Central Administrative Tribunal in I.A.No.485/2001. Before the Industrial Tribunal, documents in Ex.W-1 to W-15 were marked. However, there was no oral evidence adduced on either side. The Industrial Tribunal came to a conclusion that the action of the Railways in ordering compulsory retirement of the appellant was just and proper, on account of the volume of evidence adduced against him. Accordingly, award was passed against the appellant on 6 June 2001. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged in W.P.No.13196/2001.
7. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that he was denied the opportunity of fair hearing by the Enquiry Officer as he was not permitted to have the assistance of a legal practitioner in spite of the fact that the Presenting officer was a legally trained professional. It was also contended that even on facts, no case was made out against the appellant as his act was only making payment on the basis of an endorsement made by the cancelling Clerk.
8. The learned Single Judge found that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner with due participation of the appellant. The appellant cross examined the witnesses in detail. According to the learned Single Judge, CBI Inspector was not a legal practitioner and as such, there was no violation of the statutory regulation governing the railway employees. The learned Single Judge opined that the materials produced before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Industrial Tribunal were sufficient to come to a definite conclusion about the misconduct committed by the appellant. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. It is the said order which is challenged in this writ appeal. Submission on Appeal :-
9. The learned counsel for the appellant made extensive submissions both on the ground of violation of statutory regulation as well as on facts.
10. According to the learned counsel, Rule 9 (13)(1)(a) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 gives a right to the delinquent to engage a legal practitioner in case the Pres
