Legal Review and Analysis of V M Saudagar Dead Through Legal Heirs vs The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr 2025 INSC 1257

1. Heading of the Judgment

V.M. Saudagar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs vs. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1257, Civil Appeal No. 13017 of 2025 (@ Diary No. 19424 of 2019)

2. Related Laws and Rules

The judgment primarily engages with the following regulatory framework:

• The Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966: Specifically, Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii), which mandate that every railway servant shall maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, and do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway servant.

• Principles of Natural Justice: The judgment fundamentally revolves around the tenets of a fair departmental enquiry, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and the requirement for evidence to be substantial and reliable.

• Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals and Judicial Review: It addresses the scope of interference by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court in disciplinary matters, particularly when the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse or based on no evidence.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

• Appellant(s): Legal Heirs of the deceased employee, V.M. Saudagar

• Respondent(s): The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Another

• Appeal: Challenged the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2017 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which had upheld the dismissal of the appellant.

• Origin: The case originated from a departmental enquiry against the appellant, a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE), following a surprise check on 31.05.1988.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Issue: Perversity of Enquiry Findings and Violation of Natural Justice

The core legal principle addressed by the Supreme Court in this judgment is the limit of judicial review in departmental enquiries and the imperative of foundational evidence. The Court clarified that while courts and tribunals should not normally re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary matters, they are duty-bound to interfere when the findings of the enquiry officer are "perverse," meaning they are based on no evidence, or are so irrational that no reasonable person could have arrived at them. Furthermore, a denial of a fair opportunity to the delinquent employee, such as the inability to cross-examine a crucial accuser, constitutes a fatal flaw violating the principles of natural justice.

In-Depth Analysis of the Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court conducted a meticulous analysis of each charge against the deceased employee, demonstrating how the enquiry findings were unsustainable.

A. Charge 1: Demanding Illegal Gratification

• Issue: The appellant was charged with demanding bribes from three passengers.

• Supreme Court's Scrutiny:
  Hemant Kumar: His written statement was used but he was not examined during the enquiry. The Court held that relying on this statement without giving the appellant a chance to cross-examine the accuser was a serious denial of a fair hearing.
  Dinesh Choudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal: Both passengers, when examined, did not support the charges. The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer perversely construed their exculpatory statements to somehow sustain the charge. For instance, one witness's statement was contrary to the charge itself.

• Conclusion: The most serious charge was built on unreliable and untested evidence.

B. Charge 2: Possession of Excess Cash

• Issue: The appellant was found with Rs. 1254/- in excess cash.

• Supreme Court's Scrutiny: The Court emphasized that there was no rule prescribing a cash ceiling for a TTE. Crucially, the appellant had deposited the amount in the Railway Sundry Accounts on the same day, and there was no allegation of misappropriation. The Railway's reliance on a circular issued in 1997 for an incident in 1988 was rightly rejected by the CAT as irrelevant.

• Conclusion: Mere possession of cash, without a rule prohibiting it or evidence of misappropriation, does not constitute misconduct.

C. Charge 3: Failure to Recover Fare Difference

• Issue: The appellant allegedly failed to recover Rs. 18/- as fare difference from a passenger.

• Supreme Court's Scrutiny: This charge was proven solely on the statement of the Vigilance Inspector. The Court found it fatal that the passenger concerned was not examined and the relevant receipt book was not produced to corroborate the claim.

• Conclusion: The charge was based on inconclusive evidence and could not be sustained.

D. Charge 4: Forgery of Duty Card Pass

• Issue: The appellant was charged with forging his duty card to extend its validity.

• Supreme Court's Scrutiny: The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer himself did not find this charge proved. No handwriting expert was consulted to verify the alleged forgery, and no conclusive evidence was adduced.

• Conclusion: The charge was entirely unsubstantiated.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had quashed the dismissal order, was restored.

The Court issued the following specific directions:

"…all the consequential monetary benefits including pensionary benefits shall be released in favour of the appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased employee within a period of three months from today."

Citation: V.M. Saudagar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs vs. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr., 2025 INSC 1257.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In V.M. Saudagar vs. Central Railway, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order primarily because?
a) The punishment of dismissal was too harsh for the misconduct.
b) The findings of the departmental enquiry were perverse and violated natural justice.
c) The High Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the writ petition.
d) The appellant had already passed away during the proceedings.

Question 2: Regarding the charge of illegal gratification, which of the following was a critical flaw identified by the Supreme Court in the enquiry process?
a) The passengers who paid the bribes were not identified properly.
b) The amount of bribe was too small to be considered serious.
c) A key complainant's statement was relied upon without giving the employee a chance to cross-examine him.
d) The vigilance team did not follow the correct procedure for the surprise check.