2006 (11) TMI 647 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the service card.
2. Compliance with disciplinary procedures.
3. Judicial review of disciplinary actions.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Service Card:
The appellant was engaged as a casual laborer and had a service card documenting his employment history. A report by an Electrical Foreman in 1990 alleged that the service card was fake, leading to charges against the appellant for securing employment based on a fake service card. The Inquiry Officer initially found the service card entries to be correct, but the disciplinary authority was dissatisfied and ordered a further inquiry. The second inquiry concluded that the service card was forged, resulting in the appellant's removal from service.

2. Compliance with Disciplinary Procedures:
The disciplinary authority did not follow the procedures outlined in sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Specifically, the authority failed to record reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings and did not provide the appellant with an additional opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal found that the disciplinary authority's actions were illegal and without jurisdiction, as they did not comply with the required procedures.

3. Judicial Review of Disciplinary Actions:
The Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages, which was overturned by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority's failure to follow the prescribed procedures rendered the disciplinary action invalid. The Court emphasized that judicial review is maintainable when a statutory authority acts beyond its jurisdiction or without proper application of mind. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration in light of the correct procedures.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the disciplinary authority did not comply with the procedural requirements under Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision. The appellant was awarded costs of Rs. 15,000.