2009 (5) TMI 913 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether respondent employee did not travel in second class compartment as admittedly there was no reservation for him in that class? Whether in such a fact situation, the respondent was entitled to travel in first class?

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the respondent-employee's travel in First Class.
2. Refusal to arrange payment to employees.
3. Playing cards with RPF Rakshaks while on duty.
4. Irresponsibility in dealing with agitators and refusal to receive "Control Message"/"Memo".
5. Refusal to accept the memo from superiors.
6. Allegation of demanding a 1% commission for payment of pay allowances.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Legitimacy of Travel in First Class
The learned Single Judge concluded that the respondent-employee was instructed by higher authorities to travel by train for disbursing cash, and there was no reservation in the second class compartment. The charge could not be proved as there was no finding that the respondent was not entitled to travel in First Class. The judge noted, "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."

Issue 2: Refusal to Arrange Payment
The learned Single Judge referred to departmental circulars, particularly office circular No.23 of 1969, which required the presence of a Gazetted Officer for payments over Rs. 500. The respondent's refusal to make payments without a Gazetted Officer present was deemed justifiable and not misconduct. The judge concluded, "mere error of judgment or lack of tact on the part of the employee could not make him liable to face disciplinary proceeding."

Issue 3: Playing Cards with RPF Rakshaks
The learned Single Judge found the evidence insufficient to prove that playing cards constituted misconduct. The judge stated, "the respondent did nothing which may fell within the mischief of either of the above clauses of Rule 3 of the Rules 1966."

Issue 4: Irresponsibility and Refusal to Receive "Control Message"/"Memo"
The judge found that the respondent's failure to convince agitators was not misconduct but noted that he did refuse to receive the "control message." The judge concluded that this failure did not warrant major punishment.

Issue 5: Refusal to Accept Memo
The judge found this charge proved, but emphasized that it did not justify major punishment.

Issue 6: Allegation of Demanding 1% Commission
The learned Single Judge found the charge based on hearsay and lacking concrete evidence. The judge noted, "such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the concerned employee." The evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain the charge.

Conclusion:
The learned Single Judge directed the disciplinary authority to impose a minor penalty for charges 4 and 5. The Division Bench upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge and noted the prolonged period of litigation, directing the payment of 50% back wages and all consequential benefits to the respondent-employee.

Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, noting that the disciplinary proceedings were based on insufficient evidence and that the charges, except for the refusal to accept the memo, did not warrant major punishment. The court directed the appellants to pay 50% of the pay and allowances without interest until the respondent reached superannuation and arrears of retiral benefits with 9% interest within three months. The court emphasized the need to end the respondent's prolonged mental agony and harassment.

← Previous Next →