In a significant judgment bringing closure to a 37-year-old departmental dispute, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Bombay High Court ruling and restored the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision that had quashed the dismissal of a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) accused of taking bribes. The court also ordered the Central Railway to release all pension and monetary benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, V.M. Saudagar, within three months.
Background
The case dates back to May 31, 1988, when a vigilance team conducted a surprise check on the Dadar–Nagpur Express. Saudagar, then a TTE with Central Railway, was accused of demanding illegal gratification from passengers-Rs. 25 from one Hemant Kumar, Rs. 20 from Dinesh Choudhary, and Rs. 5 from Rajkumar Jaiswal. He was also found carrying ₹1,254 in cash, which officials claimed was “excess and undeclared.”
Following an internal inquiry, the Divisional Commercial Manager dismissed Saudagar in June 1996. However, the CAT in 2002 set aside the dismissal, terming the enquiry “perverse and unsupported by evidence.” The Bombay High Court later overturned the CAT’s order in 2017, upholding the dismissal. Saudagar’s family-his legal heirs-then took the matter to the Supreme Court after his death.
Court’s Observations
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that the charges against Saudagar were not conclusively proved. The apex court pointed out that the main complainant, Hemant Kumar, whose written statement formed the basis of the bribery charge, was never examined during the inquiry and thus never cross-examined.
“The enquiry officer relied upon the statement of a person who was never examined. Such evidence cannot be the foundation for holding a person guilty,” the bench observed.
The court also highlighted that the other two passengers, Dinesh Choudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal, had actually not supported the bribery allegations. In fact, one of them stated that Saudagar had assured to return the remaining money after attending other coaches, indicating no element of corruption.
On the charge of carrying excess cash, the court accepted that there was no specific rule in 1988 restricting the amount of money a TTE could possess. The bench agreed with CAT’s view that the Railway Board circular relied upon by the department was issued nearly a decade later, in 1997, and thus could not apply retrospectively.
Regarding the allegation of forgery in extending the validity of a duty card pass, the court found no handwriting expert’s opinion or conclusive evidence to establish guilt.
Decision
Concluding that none of the charges had been proved with legal certainty, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with CAT’s findings. “When the enquiry officer’s findings are perverse or based on misleading material, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalty,” the bench noted.
Taking into account that the incident occurred more than 37 years ago and the employee had since passed away, the court restored CAT’s 2002 order. It directed the Central Railway to release all pensionary and consequential benefits to Saudagar’s legal heirs within three months.
“The appeal is allowed,” Justice Mishra said while pronouncing the order.
Case Title: V.M. Saudagar (Dead) through Legal Heirs vs The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr.
Case Type: Civil Appeal No. 13017 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30819 of 2025)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1257
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2025