UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus GYAN CHAND CHATTAR

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 28-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 124 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
' 
v. 
.> 
GYAN CHAND CHATTAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 4174 of 2003) 
B 
MAY 28 2009 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.) 
Service Law - Misconduct - Allegations of - Six charges 
c - Held: There was no evidence on any charge except charge 
nos.4 and 5 - But charge nos. 4 and 5 did not warrant 
imposition of major punishment of removal:::: Charge no.6 was 
-
serious but vague - In interest of justice, and considering the 
fact that respondent-employee was not paid since his 
D suspension about three decades back and he reached age 
of superannuation long back, appellant-employer directed to 
pay 50% pay and allowances without interest till respondent 
reached age of superannuation and arrears of retiral benefits 
with 9% interest- Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966- r.3. 
E 
: 
Respondent, a cashier in Western Railways, was 
served with charge-sheet containing six charges. Charge 
no.1 was that he travelled in train in a Class he was not 
entitled for; Charge no.2 was that he refused to arrange 
.... 
F 
payment to employees against certain bills; Charge no.3 
was that while on duty, he played cards with RPF 
Rakshaks; Charge nos.4 and 5 were that when the train 
in which respondent was travelling was detained by 
agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of pay 
allowance, he acted irresponsibly and refused to receive 
G "control message"/"memo" from his superior officers 
leading to greater detention of the train while Charge no.6 
1 
.... 
was that he wanted commission of 1 % for payment of pay 
allowance to employees. The Enquiry Officer found all the 
H 
124 
r 
( 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATIAR 125 
-' 
six charges proved and consequently respondent was 
A 
•'· 
removed from service. The appellate authority modified 
the punishment to reversion. 
The Single Judge of High Court held that only charge 
nos. 4 & 5 could be found proved and directed the 
B 
~ 
disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order imposing 
minor punishment on charge nos.4 & 5. The Division 
Bench quashed the said direction given by the Smgle 
Judge and considering the facts and circumstances of 
-; 
the case, directed the appellant-authorities to pay 50% 
back wages to respondent alongwith all consequential c 
benefits including retiral benefits. Hence the present 
__..;.,:__ 
appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD:1.1. The Enquiry Officer while dealing with 
Charge No.1 held that respondent did not travel in 
second class cpmpartment as admittedly there was rio 
reservation for him in that class. The Enquiry Officer 
failed to examine the issue further as to whether in such 
E 
· a fact situation, the respondent was entitled to travel in 
first class. Thus, on Charge No. 1, enquiry was not 
complete. Thus, no finding could be recorded holding the 
.. 
~espondent guilty of misconduct on this count. On 2nd 
.... 
Charge, explanation furnished by the respondent that it 
F 
; 
was not possible for him to disburse the pay and 
allowances in the absence of a Gazetted Officer as it was 
more than Rs.500/-, was worth acceptance in the light of 
circulars issued by the Railway itself. Therefore, refusal 
to disburse the pay allowances by the delinquent could 
G 
not be termed as misconduct. Charge No. 3 was in 
, -
~ 
respect of playing cards with RPF Raksaks during 
~ 
disbursement of pay and allowances. The delinquent was 
found playing cards during the course of journey but 
--
H 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A there had been no actual disbursement of any pay and 
allowances to anyone at the relevant time. Therefore, the 
Enquiry Officer has not considered the issue in correct 
perspective. Charge No. 4 & 5 have partly been found 
proved by the Single Judge to the extent that the 
B respondent refused to accept the ·control message'/ 
'memo'. But for that also, major punishment could not be 
°'1posed. Charge No. 6 was basically based on hearsay 
statement and it is difficult to assume as to whether 
enquiry could be held on such a vague charge. Charge 
c No. 6 does not reveal as who was the person who had 
been asked by the respondent to pay 1% commission for 
payment of pay allowances. [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23] 
[138-C-H; 139-A-C] 
2.1. Where a delinquent is served a charge-sheet 
D without giving specific and definite charge and no 
statement of allegation is served along with the charge-
s heet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having be

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