UNION OF INDIA Vs J.JASON JOSEPH
Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-001863-001863 / 2011
Diary number: 2523 / 2011
Advocates: ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Vs
A. T. M. SAMPATH
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