2002 JTR(SC) 817
2002 AIR(SC) 3030 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 3379 ; 2003 1 AllCJ 22 ; 2002 AllLJ 2160 ; 2002 4 AWC 2877 ; 2002 3 BBCJ(SC) 40 ; 2002 101 FJR 642 ; 2002 95 FLR 11 ; 2003 1 JCR(SC) 12 ; 2002 3 JLJR(SC) 99 ; 2002 6 JT 152 ; 2002 LIC 2974 ; 2002 3 LLJ 848 ; 2002 4 LLN 1183 ; 2002 4 PLJR(SC) 33 ; 2002 4 RSJ 210 ; 2002 5 Scale 616 ; 2002 7 SCC 142 ; 2002 SCC(L&S) 1028 ; 2002 Supp1 SCR 568 ; 2002 3 SCT 1069 ; 2002 5 SLR 600 ; 2002 KHC 1852 ; 2002 3 KLT(Online) 1002 ; 2002 5 Supreme 330
2002(5) Supreme 330
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Sher Bahadur -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5055 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15635 of 2001)
Decided on 16-8-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jagat Singh, Ashwani Sharma and Ranbir Yadav, Advocates.
For the Respondents : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, A.K. Kaul and Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
"Sufficiency of evidence" means that there should be some evidence (oral, documentary and circumstantial) which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Merely mentioning that there is sufficient evidence which proves the charge would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
RAILWAYS SERVANTS DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES : R.6(vii)(ix)
RAILWAYS SERVICE DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES : R.6(vii), R.6(ix)
RAILWAYS SERVICES CONDUCT RULES : R.3(1)(1), R.31(1)(ii)(iii), R.3(1)(ii), R.3(1)(iii)
(A) The impugned order of dismissal of the appellant-casual worker was challenged under Sections 226 of the Constitution read with Rule 6(vii), Rule 6(vii)(ix) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986 and Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii), Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The appellant contended that the enquiry report suffered from non-appreciation of no evidence linking him to the alleged fraud in securing a regular appointment, and therefore the dismissal was without lawful basis. The High Court held the evidence sufficient, but this Court examines whether the disciplinary authority made a valid finding on the basis of legally sufficient evidence, as required under the rules and the principles of natural justice.
(B) The case turns on the principle that an enquiry must be based on legally sufficient evidence that establishes a nexus between the misconduct alleged and the accused servant. The mere invocation of disciplinary rules and formal compliance does not insulate an order from judicial review if the order is not supported by relevant and legally sufficient evidence. The court emphasized that findings of guilt must rest on relevant evidence capable of witharding scrutiny, and not merely on conclusory notes or neutral appointment orders.
Facts of the case:
The appellant worked as a casual labourer and was later re-engaged in 1989. He was medically examined and granted temporary status as a khalasi. A charge-sheet was issued alleging that he fraudulently secured his appointment without having worked prior to 1981 and without specific approval. An enquiry was held, he was found guilty, and dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently before the High Court, which dismissed his petition.
Findings of Court:
The High Court accepted the sufficiency of evidence based on the enquiry report and oral and documentary evidence, including an appointment order. This Court held that the evidence did not establish a link between the appellant and the alleged misconduct, as the enquiry officer did not examine the key witness and the appointment order was a neutral fact. The finding of guilt was erroneous for lack of evidence connecting the appellant to the charge.
Issues:
Whether the dismissal order was supported by legally sufficient evidence within the meaning of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidentiary value of the enquiry report and the appointment order.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a dismissal is based on an enquiry, the disciplinary authority must record findings supported by relevant and legally sufficient evidence that directly links the accused to the misconduct. Evidence that is irrelevant or fails to establish the alleged misconduct cannot be treated as sufficient, and such an order is liable to be set aside.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal is set aside, and the respondent is directed to pay compensation equal to the average salary for two years within two months.
(A) The impugned order of dismissal of the appellant-casual worker was challenged under Sections 226 of the Constitution read with Rule 6(vii), Rule 6(vii)(ix) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986 and Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii), Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The appellant contended that the enquiry report suffered from non-appreciation of no evidence linking him to the alleged fraud in securing a regular appointment, and therefore the dismissal was without lawful basis. The High Court held the evidence sufficient, but this Court examines whether the disciplinary authority made a valid finding on the basis of legally sufficient evidence, as required under the rules and the principles of natural justice.
(B) The case turns on the principle that an enquiry must be based on legally sufficient evidence that establishes a nexus between the misconduct alleged and the accused servant. The mere invocation of disciplinary rules and formal compliance does not insulate an order from judicial review if the order is not supported by relevant and legally sufficient evidence. The court emphasized that findings of guilt must rest on relevant evidence capable of witharding scrutiny, and not merely on conclusory notes or neutral appointment orders.
Facts of the case:
The appellant worked as a casual labourer and was later re-engaged in 1989. He was medically examined and granted temporary status as a khalasi. A charge-sheet was issued alleging that he fraudulently secured his appointment without having worked prior to 1981 and without specific approval. An enquiry was held, he was found guilty, and dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently before the High Court, which dismissed his petition.
Findings of Court:
The High Court accepted the sufficiency of evidence based on the enquiry report and oral and documentary evidence, including an appointment order. This Court held that the evidence did not establish a link between the appellant and the alleged misconduct, as the enquiry officer did not examine the key witness and the appointment order was a neutral fact. The finding of guilt was erroneous for lack of evidence connecting the appellant to the charge.
Issues:
Whether the dismissal order was supported by legally sufficient evidence within the meaning of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidentiary value of the enquiry report and the appointment order.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a dismissal is based on an enquiry, the disciplinary authority must record findings supported by relevant and legally sufficient evidence that directly links the accused to the misconduct. Evidence that is irrelevant or fails to establish the alleged misconduct cannot be treated as sufficient, and such an order is liable to be set aside.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal is set aside, and the respondent is directed to pay compensation equal to the average salary for two years within two months.
JUDGMENT
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.
2. The unsuccessful appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad assails the order of a Division Bench dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53498 of 2000 on May 16, 2001.
3. The appellant claims that he had worked as a casual labourer during the period May 25, 1978 to November 23, 1979 under IOW/ALD. However, by order dated May 19, 1989 he was re-engaged along with three others by Mr. Ajit Singh, A.P.O. (Const.), Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. It is further claimed that on December 20, 1990 he was medically examined and, having been found fit, he was granted temporary status on the post of khalasi in regular pay scale. While so, the Senior Civil Engineer (Const.), Northern Railway, Kanpur, U.P. (Respondent No. 4) issued a charge-sheet memo alleging that he has fraudulently secured the said appointment letter duly signed by the said A.P.O. (Const.) without having worked prior to 1981 and/or without the specific and personal approval of General Manager or both and in that he had contravened Rule 3.1 (i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. He denied the charge. A regular enquiry was conducted and the appellant was found guilty of the charge. On December 13, 1994 the disciplinary authority imposed on the appellant punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect under Rule 6 (vii) to (ix) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986. The appellant challenged the validity of the said order of dismissal in Original Application No. 1911 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by order passed on August 22, 2000 which was impugned in the afore-mentioned writ petition before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. It is against the order of the dismissal of the said writ petition by the High Court dated May 16, 2001, that the appellant is in appeal in this Court.
4. Mr. Jagat Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the High Court erred in not appreciating the contention that the enquiry report was based on no evidence and as such there was no valid basis for dismissal of the appellant.
5. Mr. V.C. Mahajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, argued that after conducting enquiry and after complying with all the formalities, the appellant was dismissed from service. Both the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court found that the dismissal was proper.
6. A perusal of the judgment and order under challenge shows that the High Court having referred to the enquiry report found that there was oral and documentary evidence (Ex.P-1) to hold him guilty and that sufficiency of the evidence would not be a ground to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority by invoking the writ jurisdiction.
7. It may be observed that the expression "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however, voluminous it may be, 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 oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. Though, the disciplinary authority cited one witness Sh. R.A. Vashist, Ex. CVI/N.Rly., New Delhi, in support of the charges, he was not examined. Regarding documentary evidence, Ex.P-1, referred to in the enquiry report 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 during the period between May 1978 and November 1979 in different phases. Indeed, his statement was 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 said APO (Const.) was proved, is, in the light of the above discussion, erroneous. In our view, 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 the judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the disciplinary authority, under challenge, cannot be sustained, they are accordingly set aside.
8. The next question is what relief can be granted to the appellant. 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. In the circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case to direct his re-instatement. In our view, interests of justice would be met by directing respondent No. 1 to pay the appellant compensation equal to average salary for a period of two years within two months from today.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed accordingly.
**************