SHER BAHADUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 16-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHER BAHADUR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUAD RI A~D S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, I 966; Section 3. 1 (i)(ii) and (iii)/ 
C Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986; Rule 6[vii) to {ix): 
Appointment as casual labourer-Conferred temporary status on the post of 
Khalasi in regular pay scale-Issuance of charge sheet by the Disciplinary 
Authority-Dismissal on the ground of misconduct after conducting regular 
enquiry-Challenging on ground of insufficiency of evidence-Rejected by 
D Tribunal and High Court-Correctness of-Held, sufficiency of evidence 
postulates existence of such evidence which establishes nexus of charged 
officer with the alleged misconduct-Since no such nexus could be found in 
the enquiry report the finding of Inquiry Officer erroneous-Directions for 
payment of compensation issued since it is not a fit case for reinstatement. 
E 
F 
Appellant had served as casual labourer in Railway for a certain period 
and subsequently he was re-engaged. Thereafter, he was medically examined 
and conferred temporary status on the post of khalasi in regular pay scale. 
He was issued a charge-sheet alleging that he obtained his appointment 
fraudulently. A regular enquiry was conducted and as per enquiry report, 
appellant was found guilty of the charge. Accordingly, disciplinary authority 
dismissed him from service under Rule 6(vii) to (ix) of the Railway Servants 
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986. He unsuccessfully challenged the order 
of dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal. High Court also 
dismissed the Writ Petition filed against the Tribunal's order. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that enquiry report was based 
H 
no evidence and as such dismissal of the appellant was not justified. On behalf 
of the respondents, it was contended that appellant was dismissed from the 
service after conducting enquiry and complying with all the formalities. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
568 
SHER BAHADUR v. U.0.1. 
569 
HELD: 1.1. Documentary evidence referred to in the enquiry report A 
and adverted to by the High Court, is the order of appointment of the appellant 
which is a neutral fact. The enquiry officer examined the charged officer but 
nothing is elicited to connect him with the charge. The statement of the 
appellant recorded by the enquiry officer shows no more than his working 
earlier to his re-engagement in different phases. Indeed, his statement was B 
not relied upon by the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer that 
in view of the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, the charge 
against the appellant for securing the fraudulent appointment letter duly 
signed by the concerned authority was proved, is erroneous. 157I-D-F) 
1.2. The expression "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of C 
some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged 
against him. Evidence, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor 
establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, 
is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his 
report, "in view of ora~ documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced 
in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of D 
evidence. Moreover, though, the disciplinary authority cited one witness in 
support of the charges, he was not examined.1571-C, DJ 
1.3. This is clearly a case of finding the appellant guilty of charge 
without having any evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct. 
The High Court did not consider this aspect in its proper perspective as such E 
the judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the disciplinary 
authority, under challenge, cannot be sustained. 1571-F, G) 
2. Inasmuch as the appellant, a casual worker (khalasi), was in service 
for two years and it is more than a decade that he has been out of service, it F 
is not a fit case to direct his re-instatement. In the interest of justice, 
Respondent No.I is directed to pay the appellant compensation equal to average 
salary for a period of two years.1571-H; 572-A) 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5055 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.200 I of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 53498 of2000. 
Jagat Singh, Ashwani Sharma and Ranbir Yadav, for the Appellant. 
G 
V.C. Mahajan, A.K. Kaul and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.