SC Restores CAT Order Reinstating Railway Employee; High Court Erred in Upholding Dismissal:

SC Restores CAT Order Reinstating Railway Employee; High Court Erred in Upholding Dismissal

SC held that the Central Administrative Tribunal rightly set aside the dismissal of a Travelling Ticket Examiner, as charges of bribery, excess cash, and forgery were unproven; HC’s interference was unwarranted.

Supreme Court Restores CAT Order Reinstating Railway Employee Dismissed for Unproven Charges

authorMeetu KumaridateOct 29, 2025
Last update on Oct 29, 2025
SC Restores CAT Order Reinstating Railway Employee; High Court Erred in Upholding Dismissal The appellant, late V.M. Saudagar, a Travelling Ticket Examiner with Central Railway, was dismissed in 1996 following a vigilance check alleging bribery, possession of excess cash, and forgery of a duty card pass. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai, in 2002 quashed the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with full benefits. However, the Bombay High Court in 2017 reversed CAT’s decision, restoring the dismissal. The employee died during the pendency of the case, and his legal heirs pursued the appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Enquiry Officer relied on untested evidence, as the principal complainant was never examined and other witnesses did not support the charges. The disciplinary authority merely copied the enquiry report without independent reasoning. It was also argued that the alleged excess cash was lawfully deposited and that no rule barred a TTE from carrying personal money. The respondent Railways maintained that the enquiry was fair, the findings supported by evidence, and CAT had exceeded its jurisdiction in reappreciating facts.
Supreme Court: Minor at Time of Transaction Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cheating
Issue Raised: Whether the High Court erred in interfering with CAT’s finding that the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal were unsustainable for lack of evidence and procedural fairness.
GSTAT: No Interest Payable on Profiteered Amount for Pre-Amendment Period under Rule 133(3)(c)
SC's Judgment: The Supreme Court held that none of the four charges was proved conclusively. Key witness Hemant Kumar was never examined; other passengers denied any demand for money. Reliance on untested statements violated natural justice. The amount was deposited in the Railway accounts; no circular prohibiting possession existed at the time. The alleged short recovery of Rs. 18 was unsubstantiated; no passenger or receipt record was produced. No handwriting expert examined the duty pass; even the enquiry officer did not find this charge proved. CAT had correctly found the findings perverse and set aside the penalty; the High Court failed to apply settled law limiting interference to cases of procedural illegality. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored CAT’s 2002 order, and directed the release of all consequential monetary and pensionary benefits to the legal heirs within three months. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…