IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1863 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.2938 of 2011]

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .......APPELLANTS  

Versus

J. JASON JOSEPH .....RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard.

2. The  respondent  was  a  Travelling  Ticket  

Inspector  in  the  Southern  Railway.  In  regard  to  seven  

charges, as per charge memo dated 19.2.1997, a departmental  

inquiry  was  held  and  the  Inquiry  Officer  submitted  an  

report dated 13.6.2002 holding that the charges were proved  

(except  a  part  of  the  charge  No.2).   The  disciplinary  

authority  accepted  the  inquiry  report  and  imposed  the  

punishment of dismissal on the respondent by order dated  

26.7.2002.   The  respondent  filed  an  appeal  and  the  

appellate authority, by order dated 20.2.2003, allowed the  

appeal of the employee in part.  The appellate authority  

held that only charges 1,6 and 7 were proved and charges  

2,3,4 and 5 were not proved.  He was of the view that the  

punishment of dismissal was excessive in respect of the  

proved charges and, therefore, he set aside the dismissal  

and   imposed  the  punishment  of  reduction in rank from  

1

TTE in the time scale of Rs. 5000 to 8000 to senior TC in  

the time scale of 4000 to 6000 for a period of three years  

(recurring)  subject  to  the  condition  that  the  period  

between  the  date  of  dismissal  to  date  of  reinstatement  

shall be treated as period under suspension.  The General  

Manager, in exercise of his revisional power, after giving  

an opportunity to the respondent to show cause, revised the  

order of the Appellate Authority and passed an order dated  

8.9.2005 increasing the punishment to dismissal. He held  

that even in regard to charges 1, 6 and 7 which were held  

to be proved, the respondent deserved the punishment of  

dismissal.  

3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached  

the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  and  challenged  the  

punishment.   The  Tribunal,  by  order  dated  30.5.2007,  

dismissed the original application filed by the respondent  

and  confirmed  the  punishment  imposed.   However,  the  

subsequent  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondent  

challenging the order of the Tribunal was allowed by the  

Madras High Court, by the impunged order dated 22.10.2010.  

The  High  Court  was  of  the  view  that  the  revisional  

authority  was  not  justified  in  interfering  with  the  

decision of the appellate authority.  As a consequence, the  

High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and the  

revisional  authority  and  restored  the  order  of  the  

appellate  authority  with  the  consequential  benefits  of  

2

continuity of service, seniority and 25% of the backwages.  

The  said  order  is  challenged  in  this  appeal  by  special  

leave.

4. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

submitted  that  there  was  no  justification  for  the  High  

Court,  in  exercise  of  power  of  judicial  review,  to  

interfere with the findings of the revisional authority and  

the  punishment  imposed,  which  had  been  accepted  by  the  

Administrative Tribunal. He also contended that the High  

Court having confirmed the finding that the charges 1,6 and  

7 against the respondent were proved, the direction for  

payment  of  25%  backwages  would  amount  to  rewarding  the  

guilty, which is impermissible in law.   

5.    The revisional authority did not interfere with the  

findings  recorded  by  the  appellate  authority  that  

respondent  was  not  guilty  of  charges  2,3,4  and  5.  The  

appellate authority found that as only charges 1,6 and 7  

were  proved  and  the  other  charges  relating  mis-

appropriation  of  additional  fare  were  not  proved,  the  

punishment of dismissal was excessive and consequently set  

aside the same and imposed a lesser punishment of reduction  

in rank. On the facts and circumstances, the said order of  

the appellate authority did not call for interference and  

that too in exercise of power of revision. Therefore we are  

of the view that the High Court was justified in restoring  

the decision of the appellate authority imposing a lesser  

3

punishment.  

6.  However while the High Court was justified in restoring  

the  order  of  reinstatement  with  imposition  of  lesser  

punishment  of  reduction  in  service  with  continuity   of  

service, the High Court was not justified in granting the  

reliefs of seniority and 25% back wages. When the High Court  

has  upheld  the  finding  that  the  respondent  was  guilty  of  

charges 1,6 and 7, any direction for back wages would amount  

to rewarding the guilty, which is not permissible. Nor will he  

be entitled to restoration of his seniority as ordered  by  

the High Court.

7. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in  

part and set aside the order of the High Court awarding  

backwages of 25% and restoring the seniority. As a result of  

setting aside of the punishment of dismissal the respondent  

will  be  entitled  to  reinstatement  with  continuity  of  

service, but shall be subjected to the punishment imposed by  

the appellate authority. The respondent will not be entitled  

to restoration of seniority or to any back wages.

  ......................J.             (  R.V.  

RAVEENDRAN )

4

New Delhi;    ......................J. February 14, 2011.              ( A.K. PATNAIK )

5