SC Restores CAT Order | TTE’s Dismissal Set Aside as Charges Not Proved

Case Details: V.M. Saudagar vs. Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 625 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjay Karol & Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
• Kishor Lambat, Ms Kashmira Lambat & Ms Suja Joshi, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Ms Sairica S. Raju, Rahul Mishra, Advs. & Amrish Kumar, AOR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, a vigilance surprise check was conducted in a train, and it was alleged that the appellant demanded/retained money from passengers for allotment of berths. A charge-sheet was thereafter issued to the appellant under Rule 3(1)(i)-(ii) of the 1966 Rules, alleging lack of integrity and devotion to duty. In the departmental enquiry, the charges were held to be proved, and the appellant was dismissed from service.

The appellant was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) in Central Railway. He faced disciplinary proceedings on allegations of misconduct, including failure to recover fare difference from a passenger. One charge was that on 31.05.1988, he failed to recover a fare difference of Rs. 18 from a passenger holding Ticket No. 444750 for Berth No. 52 from Dadar to Nagpur, which was later recovered in the presence of the vigilance team.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that one of the passengers was not examined and the other two passengers did not support the charges against the appellant. Therefore, the charge of demanding illegal gratification did not stand proved in the departmental enquiry. It was further held that the charge of failure to recover the fare difference of Rs. 18 was also not proved.

Since all the charges were not conclusively established against the appellant, the CAT, based on the material on record, had rightly interfered with the penalty of dismissal from service. The High Court had failed to consider the legal position that when the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and based on a complete misreading of the evidence, the CAT is fully justified in setting aside the penalty.

Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court was to be set aside, and the order of the CAT was to be restored.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 2461 of 2002 dated 21.09.2017 (para 18) set aside
• Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No. 431 of 1997 dated 21.03.2002 (para 18) affirmed