Supreme Court sets aside dismissal of railway employee after 37 years, ruling that charges were not proved due to lack of evidence and non-examination of key witness
IF A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS DISMISSED FROM SERVICE BASED ON CHARGES THAT RELY ON UNEXAMINED WITNESSES AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE, CAN THE COURTS INTERVENE TO ENSURE FAIRNESS, EVEN DECADES AFTER THE INCIDENT?
YES, THE COURTS CAN AND MUST INTERVENE TO ENSURE JUSTICE. The Supreme Court has firmly ruled that departmental enquiries must follow fundamental principles of fairness. When evidence against an employee is weak, contradictory, or based on statements never properly tested through cross-examination, the resulting dismissal is legally unsustainable. Justice is not bound by timelines, and even after 37 years, the legal heirs of a wrongfully dismissed employee are entitled to restitution.
Surprise Check: Railway vigilance team conducted surprise check on appellant, a Travelling Ticket Examiner
Charge-sheet Issued: Department issued charge-sheet under Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966
Enquiry Report: Enquiry Officer submitted report holding all charges proved
Dismissal Order: Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service
CAT Relief: Central Administrative Tribunal quashed dismissal, directed reinstatement
High Court Reversal: Bombay High Court set aside CAT order, upheld dismissal
Supreme Court Justice: Restored CAT order, directed monetary benefits to legal heirs
| Legal Principle | What It Means | Application in This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Natural Justice | Fundamental rules of fair procedure including right to be heard | Non-examination of key witness violated audi alteram partem rule |
| Cross-Examination Rights | Right to question witnesses presented by opposite party | Key complainant Hemant Kumar never examined, denying defense rights |
| Perverse Finding | Finding so irrational that no reasonable person could reach it | Enquiry Officer ignored exonerating witness testimony |
| Burden of Proof | Employer must prove each ingredient of misconduct | Department failed to prove charges with concrete evidence |
Internal proceeding conducted by government department to inquire into allegations of misconduct against an employee.
Formal document issued to employee listing specific allegations of misconduct against them.
Questioning of witness produced by opposite party to test their credibility and truth of statements.
Fundamental rules of fair procedure, including right to be heard and rule against bias.
"The edifice of a disciplinary proceeding must be built on the solid foundation of credible evidence and fair procedure. When the very pillars of this foundation—such as the right to cross-examine accusers and the requirement for rational findings—are found to be crumbling, the entire structure of the punishment must fall. The length of time that has passed cannot be a reason to deny justice, for a legal wrong does not cease to be one with the passage of time."
This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that the government, as a model employer, must hold itself to the highest standards of fairness when taking action against its employees. It empowers every public servant to demand a just and transparent process and assures them that the constitutional courts are the ultimate guardians of their rights.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance. The information provided is based on judicial interpretation and may be subject to changes in law.
Making Supreme Court judgments accessible and actionable for every Indian citizen navigating legal challenges.
This roadmap decodes a complex service law judgment to help government employees and their families understand their rights during departmental enquiries and the legal recourse available against an unfair dismissal.