Indian Railways - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

4Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

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 forgin...

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof in railway accident compensation claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held that the initial burden on claimants can be discharged by affidavit and verified ticket records, shifting the onus to the Railways. Mere absence of a ticket or seizure memo does not defeat a legitimate claim, as the statutory regime is a welfare-oriented, no-fault liability system based on preponderance of probabilities. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik on 19 May 2017. He was allegedly travelling from Indore to Ujjain by the Ranthambore Express (Train No. 12465) when, due to overcrowding, he was pushed from the moving train near Ujjain, sustaining fatal head injuries. The police regi...

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act

The Supreme Court of India held that demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, can be raised by railway authorities even after delivery of goods. The Court clarified that Section 66 does not specify a stage for imposing such charges , distinguishing it from Sections 73 and 78, which relate to punitive charges for overloading and require recovery before delivery. The Court also stated that the High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. was erroneous as that case pertained to overloading and Section 54, not misdeclaration under Section 66. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, stemming from a judgment ...