Union Of India & Anr vs J.Jason Joseph

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

2

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

3

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

4

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 )

5

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