Union of India &
Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar [2009] INSC 1121 (28 May 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4174 OF 2003 Union of
India & Ors. .... Appellants Versus Gyan Chand Chattar .... Respondent
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1.
This
appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Division Bench
of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.25 of
1983 by which while affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge dated 27.12.1982 passed in Special Civil Application No.101 of 1982
allowed the cross objections filed by the respondent-employee and set aside the
order giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of
minor punishment on two charges.
2.
The
facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the
respondent-employee Gyan Chand Chattar was appointed in the Western Railway as
Shroff in the Department of Pay and Cash in the scale of Rs.260-400 w.e.f.
8.2.1971 vide official letter dated 8.2.1971. He was thereafter posted as
Cashier in the year 1977 in the pay-scale of Rs.330-480. He was served a charge
sheet dated 8.4.1980 containing 6 charges that he traveled in the train in
First Class on 24.11.1979 though he was not entitled to travel in that class;
refused to arrange payment of certain amount to the employees against bills
dated 12.11.1979; 16.11.1979 and 21.11.1979; while on duty on 24.11.1979
travelling in 1st Class compartment of the Train, played cards with RPF Rakshaks;
that on 24.11.1979 the train in which he was traveling was detained by the
agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of their pay allowance, he acted
extremely irresponsibly and made no attempt to convince them about his
difficulties; refused to receive "Control Message"/"Memo"
from the superior officer and wanted commission of 1% for payment of pay
allowance to the employees.
3.
During
the course of enquiry both parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted its report dated
22.4.1981 to the disciplinary authority holding all six charges proved against
the said respondent-employee. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and considering the reply to the
enquiry report submitted by the delinquent employee, passed the order of
punishment dated 2.5.1981 removing the respondent from service. His appeal
against the said order was allowed partly by the statutory appellate authority
- Financial adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Churchgate,
Bombay vide order dated 10.11.1981 reducing the punishment of removal from
service to reversion of the respondent to the lower post of clerk, Grade-II in
the scale of Rs.260-400(R) until he was found fit by the competent authority
for being considered for the cashier post in the scale of Rs.330-560 (R).
4.
Being
aggrieved the respondent-employee challenged the order of punishment by filing
Special Civil Application No.101 of 1982 in the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad and the same was allowed 4 vide judgment and order dated 27.12.1982
wherein the learned Single Judge after appreciating the entire evidence came to
the conclusion that only charge which could be found proved against the respondent-employee
was not receiving the memo of superiors as alleged in charge numbers 4 & 5
against him. All other charges were found unproved. Learned Single Judge issued
a direction to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order imposing minor
punishment on the said proved charge nos.4 & 5 for not accepting the
"memo" sent by the superiors.
5.
Being
aggrieved the Union of India filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.25 of 1983
challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which has been
dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2002. However, the Division Bench
allowed the counter objections filed by the respondent to the extent that the
direction given by the learned Single Judge to impose minor penalty on charge
numbers 4 & 5 was also set aside. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Division Bench directed that respondent would be
entitled to get 50% of the back- 5 wages with all consequential benefits
including retrial benefits.
Hence, this appeal.
6.
Mr.
SWA Qadri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there
was no scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its limited
powers of judicial review against the finding of facts recorded by the enquiry
officer, approved by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Appellate
Authority. It was a case of gross indiscipline and of corruption. Six charges
against the said employee including the demand of 1% commission for making the
payment of pay allowances stood proved. Punishment order passed by the
appellate authority did not warrant any interference. More so there could be no
justification for the Division Bench allowing the counter objections filed by
the respondent employee, quashing the direction given by the learned Single
Judge to the disciplinary authority to pass an order of minor punishment on
charge nos. 4 & 5. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed.
7.
On
the contrary, Shri Bhargava V. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-employee submitted that the High 6 Court after appreciating the
entire evidence reached the conclusion that there was no occasion for the
disciplinary authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and there was
no evidence on the basis of which any of the charges leveled against him could
be held to have been proved. The High Court rightly quashed the order of
punishment passed by the statutory authorities. Division Bench of the High
Court set aside the direction to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh
order of minor punishment, as a period of twenty years had elapsed and
delinquent had suffered from mental agony and harassment Therefore, the appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
8.
We
have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
9.
The
disciplinary authority framed the following charges against the
respondent-employee.
"1. You have
traveled in First Class on 24.11.1979 by 47 DN.
When you are not
entitled to this case.
2. You refused to
arrange payment of the following amounts to the following employees against
bill bearing No.C06 No.EBS/186 dated 12.11.1979, C06 No.EBS/40 dated
16.11.1979, PMR No.2145 dated 21.11.1979, when the staff approached you for the
said payment:
a) Vana Anop. P. Man
Rs.476.65 b) Mohan Jetha -do- Rs.211.05 c) Kesha Bhika -do- Rs.298.00 d) Raiji
Mansukh T/S Rs.256.90 e) Bechav Mansing. -do- Rs.175.00 f) Manoo M. -do-
Rs.265.75 g) Soma Salu P. Man Rs. 92.75
3. While you were on
duty on 24.11.1979, in 1st Class compartment train No. 47 DN. you played cards
with RPF Rakshaks on duty. This was contrary to rules 3(i) (ii) and 3(i) (iii)
of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 - in that you have shown absolutely lack
of devotion to duty and your conduct was unbecoming of a Railway Servant.
4. On 24.11.1979 at
about 11.00 hrs. the train No. 47 DN.
was detained by
agitators, Railway staff who demanded payment of their pay allowance covered
under PMR No.2145 dated 20.11.1979. Even after knowing about this detention as
a Railway men you acted extremely irresponsibly and made no attempt to convince
them about your difficulties. On the other hand you refused to receive
"Control Message"/Memo" from DOS leading to greater detention of
the train.
5. In the back ground
of detention of train brought out under charge No.4 Sr. DAO/BRC was contacted
by control and he wanted you to speak to him in control. When you were told
about this and were handed over control message/ memo to this effect - you
refused to accept the said memo thereby sowing a great sense of
irresponsibility, lack of duty and a willful disobedience of orders of your
superiors.
6. It is also alleged
by the staff of Chandodia station that you refused to make payment to the
concerned staff on 24.11.1979 because you wanted a commission of 1% on the
arrears which the staff were unwilling to pay. Your refusal to make the payment
on the said day and the consequent agitations and detention of train arose from
your alleged 8 malafide intention of receiving commission on the arrears
payment."
10.
Enquiry
Officer found all the six charges proved against the delinquent. The
disciplinary authority agreed with those findings and imposed the punishment of
removal from service which was modified by the appellate authority imposing the
punishment of reversion to lower rank.. The learned Single Judge dealt with all
the issues elaborately. The judgment runs to 140 pages.
11.
In
order to appreciate the facts in correct perspective, it may be necessary to
make reference to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the
grounds on which the opinion had been formed. So far as Issue No.1 is concerned,
after appreciating the evidence, the learned Single Judge came to the
conclusion that the respondent had been asked by the higher authorities to
travel by 47 DN. known as Viramgam passenger for disbursing the cash as the
regular disbursing cashier was ill. Thus, the respondent employee had traveled
in first class compartment. However, the said charge could not have been held
proved unless a finding of fact was recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the
disciplinary authority 9 that he was not entitled to travel in first class
compartment.
Certain circulars had
been referred to and relied upon by the respondent-employee that for a person
performing such a duty, there has to be reservation in second class compartment
by the railway department itself; otherwise he would be entitled to travel in
first class compartment. As the second component of the issue, i.e. as to
whether the respondent was entitled to travel in first class compartment or not
had not been dealt with at all, the first charge could not be held to have been
proved. The learned Single Judge held that as per the submissions made by the
respondent employee before the department in the enquiry and in the memo of
appeal that he was entitled to travel by first class compartment to facilitate safety
of the cash and its transaction and nothing contrary having been proved, it was
not a charge in which it could be held that the railway employee committed a
misconduct warranting major punishment of removal from service or reduction in
rank in such facts and circumstances. The learned Single Judge reached the
following conclusion:
"it must be held
that so far as charge No.1 is concerned, it is not established on the record of
this case in the light of the evidence led before the inquiry officer and even
on the basis of the findings 10 arrived at by him on that charge. ... .....
.... ... the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer on charge No.1 do not
show that all the basic requirements and ingredients of charge No.1 have been
brought home to the petitioner and on the contrary, the ultimate finding on
charge No.1 as arrived at by the inquiry officer is not supported by evidence
on record and is totally perverse. Consequently, it must be held that charge
No.1 is not legally proved against the petitioner."
12.
So
far as the Charge No. 2 is concerned, learned Single Judge referred to the
departmental circulars particularly office circular No.23 of 1969 which
provided that the disbursement of amount of more than Rs.500/- could not be
made without securing the presence of a Gazetted Officer to witness the
payment. During the transaction, the respondent employee made his stand clear
that as no Gazetted Officer was available at Chandlodia, the disbursement was
not permissible and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that mere
error of judgment or lack of tact on the part of the employee could not make
him liable to face disciplinary proceeding in such circumstances. Therefore,
the charge No.2 was not found to be proved.
13.
The
charge No.3 has been dealt with elaborately by the learned Single Judge and
came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that
respondent was playing cards with RPF 11 Raksaks while making disbursement of
the amount was totally baseless as the evidence at the most could be that in
the course of journey towards his destination the respondent to while-away time
played cards with RPF Raksaks. That could not be a conduct of unbecoming of a
railway employee on duty as Rule 3(i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services
Conduct Rules, 1966 provided that every railway employee shall (i) maintain
absolute integrity ; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which
is unbecoming of a railway or Government servant. Thus, the conclusion was that
there was no evidence to support the charge against him as the respondent did
nothing which may fell within the mischief of either of the above clauses of
Rule 3 of the Rules 1966.
14.
The
charge no.4 had been that the respondent-employee had shown extreme irresponsibility
and made no attempt to convince the agitators, Railway staff who demanded
payment of their pay allowance and did not receive the control message. The
learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that so far as the first part of
the allegation is concerned he may be failing in being tactful but it cannot be
a case of misconduct and on his count, no disciplinary 12 proceeding could be
initiated against him. However, he was found guilty of not receiving the
"control message".
15.
Charge
No.5 was also found to be proved as the employee refused to receive the
"message"/ "memo" of his superiors.
16.
So
far as charge no.6 i.e. asking for 1% commission for making the payment of pay
allowances is concerned, the learned Single Judge has appreciated the evidence
of all the witnesses examined in this regard and came to the conclusion that
not a single person had deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent
employee had asked any person to pay 1% commission for making payment of their
allowances. It was based on hearsay statements. All the witnesses stated that
this could be the motive/reason for not making the payment. Such a serious
charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and
criminal consequences upon the concerned employee. He would be liable to be
prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in
such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi criminal nature was
required to be proved beyond any 13 shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot
be proved on mere probabilities. Witnesses were examined before the Enquiry
Officer that they have heard that the said respondent was asking but none of
them was able to point out who was that person who had been asked to pay 1%
commission. One of such witnesses deposed that some unknown person had told
him. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the knowledge of the
witnesses in this regard was based on "hearsay statement of some unknown
persons whom they did not know". This was certainly not legal evidence to
sustain such a serious charge of corruption against an employee.
17.
Thus,
the writ petition was disposed of directing the disciplinary authority to
impose a minor penalty on the charges of not receiving the control
message/memo.
18.
The
Division Bench after considering the facts involved herein, came to the
conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge did
not warrant any interference being based on evidence available on record. As a
long time of about two decades had elapsed and the respondent employee was not
granted 14 any benefit of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge
and it was a case of no evidence except on charge nos.4 & 5 and the said
employee had already suffered a lot, the matter should come to an end. The
court issued the following directions.
"it would be
just and reasonable to direct the appellants authorities to pay 50% of the back
wages and all the consequential benefits including the retiral benefits without
further imposing any minor penalty as directed by the learned Single
Judge."
19.
We
have considered the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below in the
light of the evidence on record. Admittedly, all the charges except Charge No.
2 are in respect of various incidents occurred on the same date i.e. on
24.11.1979. Charge No. 2 related to the incidents dated 12.11.1979, 16.11.1979
and 21.11.1979 which had been in close proximity of subsequent incidents
occurred on 24.11.1979. The Enquiry Officer while dealing with Charge No. 1
held that respondent employee did not travel in second class compartment as
admittedly there was no reservation for him in that class. The Enquiry Officer
failed to examine the issue further as to whether in such a fact situation, the
respondent was entitled to travel in first class. Thus, on Charge No. 1,
enquiry was not complete. Thus, no finding could be recorded holding the
respondent guilty of misconduct on this count.
20.
On
2nd Charge, explanation furnished by the respondent that it was not possible
for him to disburse the pay and allowances in the absence of a Gazetted Officer
as it was more than Rs.500/-, was worth acceptance in the light of circulars
issued by the Railway itself. Therefore, refusal to disburse the pay allowances
by the delinquent could not be termed as misconduct.
21.
Charge
No. 3 was in respect of playing cards with RPF Raksaks during disbursement of
pay and allowances. The delinquent was found playing cards during the course of
journey but there had been no actual disbursement of any pay and allowances to
anyone at the relevant time. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has not considered
the issue in correct perspective.
22.
Charge
No. 4 & 5 have partly been found proved by the learned Single Judge to the
extent that he refused to accept the `control message'/'memo'. But for that
also, major punishment could not be imposed.
23.
Charge
No. 6 was basically based on hearsay statement and it is difficult to assume as
to whether enquiry could be held on such a vague charge. The Charge No. 6 does
not reveal as who was the person who had been asked by the respondent to pay 1%
commission for payment of pay allowances. It is an admitted position that if a
charge of corruption is proved, no punishment other that dismissal can be
awarded.
24.
In
Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari & Ors., AIR 1996 SC
1249, this Court held as under:
"In a case of
such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other
punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled
for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or
large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant."
25.
Similar
view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B.
Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo
Chaudhary & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central 17
Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. Secreatry, Sahakari Noukarar
Sangha & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 517; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
v. B.S. Hullikatty, AIR 2001 SC 930;
Regional Manager,
R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330; Divisional Controller
N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730; and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vinod Kumar,
(2008) 1 SCC 115 wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be
proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption,
the only punishment is dismissal from service Therefore, the charge of corruption
must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal
consequences.
26.
In
Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, this
Court held that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on a vague charge as
the same does not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective
defence because he may not be aware as what is the allegation against him and
what kind of defence he can put in rebuttal thereof. This Court observed as
under :
18 "The grounds
on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a
definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged
together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and
any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in
passing orders has to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of
the specific contents of a reasonable or and definitely what the allegations
are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly,
by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances
that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against
him."
(Emphasis added)
27.
In
a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts and
the allegation may not be specific in charge- sheet but may be crystal clear
from the statement of charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same
document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and
clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs.
S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723). Thus, where a delinquent is served a
charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of
allegation is served along with the charge- sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated
as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
28.
In
Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995, this Court held that even
in a domestic enquiry, the charge must be 19 clear, definite and specific as
it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence
adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence
or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the
enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair-play in
action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal
consequences.
29.
In
view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted
against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and
principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and
giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry
can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly,
objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or
unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises. There
is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of
the delinquent cannot be a misconduct The authority must record reasons for
arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the
misconduct.
30.
In
fact, initiation of the enquiry against the respondent appears to be the
outcome of anguish of superior officers as there had been agitation by the
Railway staff demanding the payment of pay and allowances and they detained the
train illegally and there has been too much hue and cry for several hours on
the Railway Station. The Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration the non-
existing material and failed to consider the relevant material and finding of
all facts recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
31.
There
could be no case of substantial misdemeanour against the respondent on either
of the aforesaid charges except Charge No. 6 on which major penalty could be
imposed. Charge No. 6 is totally vague and no enquiry could be conducted against
the respondent on such a charge. It was basically a case of no evidence on any
charge except Charge Nos. 4 & 5.
32.
In
fact, it was a simple case where the respondent employee failed to prove to be
a tactful person or possessing a high standard administrative capability or
firmness or a man of possessing quality of leadership. It might be a case of
his indecisiveness or lack of presence of mind. It cannot be held that any of
the aforesaid charges except Charge No. 6, may warrant imposition of major
punishment of removal. Thus, no interference is required in the matter.
33.
The
Division Bench, after considering the fact that already 20 years has lapsed and
judgment of the learned Single Judge has not be complied with, considered it
better to close the chapter awarding him 50% of the back wages and granted all
consequential benefits including the retiral benefits.
34.
Today,
the situation has become worst. About three decades have elapsed; the
respondent has not been paid his pay since the date of his suspension i.e.
29.11.1980, facing the disciplinary proceedings and litigation, he reached the
age of superannuation long back. Thus, it is in the interest of justice that
his mental agony and harassment should come to an end.
35.
Therefore,
we dispose of the appeal directing the present appellant to pay 50% of the pay
and allowances without interest till the respondent reached the age of
superannuation and arrears of retiral benefits with 9% interest to the
respondent-employee within a period of three months from today.
...........................................J.
(Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)
...........................................J.
(Dr. B.S. Chauhan)
New
Delhi;
28th
May, 2009.
23 24 Digital
Proforma
1. Case No. : Civil
Appeal No. 4174 of 2003
2. Date of decision :
28.5.2009 3. Cause Title : Union of India & Ors.
vs.
Gyan Chand Chattar
4. Coram : Hon'ble
Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
5. Date of C.A.V. :
21.5.2009
6. Judgment delivered
: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan by
Back
