The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry is vitiated if based on the unexamined statement of a key complainant, denying the delinquent employee the right to cross-examination—a violation of natural justice. Charges unsupported by conclusive evidence cannot sustain a dismissal order, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) with Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31 May 1988, a Railway Vigilance team conducted a surprise check on his coach. He was subsequently charge-sheeted in July 1989 for alleged misconduct, including demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for berth allotment, possessing excess undeclared cash, failing to recover a small fare difference, and forging his duty card pass. Following a departmental inquiry, the Enquiry Officer found all charges proved in 1995, leading to the appellant’s dismissal from service in June 1996. His departmental appeal was dismissed in 1997.The appellant then successfully challenged his dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2002, which quashed the penalty and ordered his reinstatement. The Railways challenged this before the Bombay High Court, which in 2017 set aside the CAT’s order and upheld the dismissal. During these proceedings, the appellant passed away, and his legal heirs pursued the matter. They appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the inquiry was flawed as a key complainant was never examined, other complainants did not support the charges, and the evidence for remaining charges was inconclusive.