Supreme Court Sets Aside 37-Year-Old Dismissal Of Railway TTE: Finds Enquiry Unsupported By Evidence, Directs Release Of Benefits To Legal Heirs
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra on Monday (October 27) set aside the 37-year-old dismissal of a Railway Travelling Ticket Examiner, concluding that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and the findings unsupported by evidence. The Court allowed the appeal filed by the deceased employee’s legal heirs and reinstated the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision that had earlier quashed the dismissal. Terming the departmental enquiry as procedurally defective, the Bench also faulted the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench for affirming it and directed that all consequentiaSupreme Court, Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, Disciplinary Proceedings, CAT Order, Bombay High Court, Service Dismissal, Judicial Reviewl monetary and pensionary benefits be released to the employee’s legal heirs.
The matter arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) of the Central Railway, Nagpur, following a surprise vigilance check conducted on May 31, 1988, in the Second-Class Sleeper Coach of the 39-Down Dadar–Nagpur Express. The employee was accused of demanding illegal gratification from passengers for berth allotment, retaining unrefunded sums, and possessing excess undeclared cash amounting to ₹1,254, excluding personal and railway cash. Additional charges included failure to recover ₹18 as fare difference from a passenger and alleged forgery of a duty card pass by extending its validity without authority.
A charge-sheet dated July 3, 1989, was issued under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, invoking Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) relating to integrity and devotion to duty. During the departmental enquiry, two passengers, Dinesh Choudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal, and the Vigilance Inspector, N.C. Dhankode, were examined. However, one complainant, Hemant Kumar, whose statement formed the basis of the main charge, was not examined. The Enquiry Officer, by report dated December 31, 1995, found all charges proved. Based on this, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on June 7, 1996. The departmental appeal was rejected on July 30, 1997.
The employee then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, Camp Nagpur, through Original Application No. 431 of 1997, which set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Railway administration challenged the CAT’s decision before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which, by judgment dated September 21, 2017, reversed the CAT’s order and upheld the dismissal. During the pendency of the proceedings, the employee passed away, and his legal heirs pursued the appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision on the grounds of procedural irregularity, denial of fair hearing, and lack of evidentiary support for the findings
.
The Court observed that “in respect of the first charge of demanding illegal gratification... one of the passengers, namely Hemant Kumar, was not examined and the other two passengers... have not supported the charges against the appellant.” It recorded that “the Enquiry Officer relied upon the statement of Hemant Kumar even though he was not even examined during enquiry and was thus not subjected to cross-examination.”
Regarding the charge of possessing excess cash, the Court stated that “the appellant is said to have deposited the said amount in the Railway Sundry Accounts on the date of incident” and that “no official document had been placed before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate this charge.” It further noted that “the respondents had placed reliance on a circular dated 22.08.1997... which was not accepted by CAT... the same was issued after the date of the incident. We are in agreement with CAT’s reasoning.”
On the alleged failure to recover ₹18 as fare difference, the Court observed that “this charge was found proved merely on the basis of the statement of the Vigilance Inspector... ignoring the fact that the passenger... has not been examined and nor the excess fare receipt book... has been produced.”
Concerning the forgery allegation, the Court recorded that “this charge was found not proved by the Enquiry Officer” and that “no evidence has been adduced to prove the charge of forgery and only the authenticity of the pass has been verified... even the alleged forged signature has not been sent to handwriting expert.”
Summarising its evaluation, the Court observed that “all the charges have not been found to be proved conclusively against the appellant and CAT... had rightly interfered with the penalty of dismissal... the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse basing on completely misleading of the materials produced before the Enquiry Officer.”
The Court directed that “while setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restoring the order of CAT, we direct that all the consequential monetary benefits including pensionary benefits shall be released in favour of the appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased employee within a period of three months from today.” It ordered accordingly that “the Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.” The Court thus restored the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had quashed the dismissal order passed against the employee, and invalidated the Bombay High Court’s judgment upholding the disciplinary action
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Adv. Mr. Kishor Lambat, Adv. Ms. Suja Joshi, Adv. M/S. Lambat And Associates, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Samir Singh Kachwaha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Aayush Ananad, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Case Title: V.M. Saudagar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs v. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1257
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13017 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
