Holding

Only charges 4 and 5 were proved; the enquiry was vitiated by vague charges, and no major punishment could be imposed, leading to an order for payment of 50% back wages and full retirement benefits.

Summary

The respondent, a cashier in Western Railway, was charged with six allegations of misconduct, including traveling in first class without entitlement, refusing to arrange payments, playing cards while on duty, refusing a control message during a train detention, and demanding a commission. The enquiry officer found all six charges proved and imposed removal, later reduced to reversion. The High Court Single Judge held only charges 4 and 5 proved and ordered a minor penalty; the Division Bench set aside that order and, considering the lapse of two decades, directed payment of 50% back wages and full retirement benefits. The Supreme Court examined whether the charges were properly proved, whether the enquiry complied with natural‑justice requirements, and whether major punishment was justified. It held that the enquiry was vitiated by vague, unspecific charges, only charges 4 and 5 were proved, and no major penalty could be imposed. Consequently, the Court directed the appellant to pay the respondent 50% of back wages and allowances without interest and arrears of retiral benefits with 9% interest.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the charge‑sheet and whether the enquiry complied with principles of natural justice
Whether each of the six charges was proved and the appropriate punishment for each
Whether a major penalty such as removal from service could be imposed on the basis of the proved charges
Whether the appellant should be ordered to pay back wages and retirement benefits to the respondent

Subjects

service lawmisconductdisciplinary enquirynatural justicevague chargesback wagesrailway service conduct rulesremoval from servicereversioncorruption

Judgment

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 124

A UNION OF INDIA & ORS. '
v. .>

GYAN CHAND CHATTAR
(Civil Appeal No. 4174 of 2003)

MAY 28 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.)

Service Law - Misconduct - Allegations of - Six charges
c - Held: There was no evidence on any charge except charge
nos.4 and 5 - But charge nos. 4 and 5 did not warrant
imposition of major punishment of removal:::: Charge no.6 was
serious but vague - In interest of justice, and considering the
fact that respondent-employee was not paid since his
-
D suspension about three decades back and he reached age
of superannuation long back, appellant-employer directed to
pay 50% pay and allowances without interest till respondent
reached age of superannuation and arrears of retiral benefits
with 9% interest- Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966- r.3.
:
E
Respondent, a cashier in Western Railways, was
served with charge-sheet containing six charges. Charge
no.1 was that he travelled in train in a Class he was not
entitled for; Charge no.2 was that he refused to arrange
payment to employees against certain bills; Charge no.3
....
F was that while on duty, he played cards with RPF
Rakshaks; Charge nos.4 and 5 were that when the train
in which respondent was travelling was detained by
agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of pay
allowance, he acted irresponsibly and refused to receive
G "control message"/"memo" from his superior officers
leading to greater detention of the train while Charge no.6 1 ....
was that he wanted commission of 1% for payment of pay
allowance to employees. The Enquiry Officer found all the

H 124
r (

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATIAR 125

-' six charges proved and consequently respondent was A
removed from service. The appellate authority modified
•'· the punishment to reversion.

The Single Judge of High Court held that only charge
nos. 4 & 5 could be found proved and directed the B
~
disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order imposing
minor punishment on charge nos.4 & 5. The Division
Bench quashed the said direction given by the Smgle
Judge and considering the facts and circumstances of
-;
the case, directed the appellant-authorities to pay 50%
back wages to respondent alongwith all consequential
c
benefits including retiral benefits. Hence the present
__..;.,:__ appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
D
HELD:1.1. The Enquiry Officer while dealing with
Charge No.1 held that respondent did not travel in
second class cpmpartment as admittedly there was rio
reservation for him in that class. The Enquiry Officer
failed to examine the issue further as to whether in such
E
· a fact situation, the respondent was entitled to travel in
first class. Thus, on Charge No. 1, enquiry was not
complete. Thus, no finding could be recorded holding the
.... .. ~espondent guilty of misconduct on this count. On 2nd
Charge, explanation furnished by the respondent that it
; F
was not possible for him to disburse the pay and
allowances in the absence of a Gazetted Officer as it was
more than Rs.500/-, was worth acceptance in the light of
circulars issued by the Railway itself. Therefore, refusal
to disburse the pay allowances by the delinquent could
G
, not be termed as misconduct. Charge No. 3 was in
- ~ ~ respect of playing cards with RPF Raksaks during
disbursement of pay and allowances. The delinquent was
found playing cards during the course of journey but

-- H
i'

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A there had been no actual disbursement of any pay and
allowances to anyone at the relevant time. Therefore, the
Enquiry Officer has not considered the issue in correct
.....
perspective. Charge No. 4 & 5 have partly been found
proved by the Single Judge to the extent that the
B respondent refused to accept the ·control message'/
'memo'. But for that also, major punishment could not be
°'1posed. Charge No. 6 was basically based on hearsay
statement and it is difficult to assume as to whether
enquiry could be held on such a vague charge. Charge
c No. 6 does not reveal as who was the person who had
been asked by the respondent to pay 1% commission for
payment of pay allowances. [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23]
[138-C-H; 139-A-C]

2.1. Where a delinquent is served a charge-sheet
D without giving specific and definite charge and no
statement of allegation is served along with the charge-
s heet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been
conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
[Para 27) [140-G-H]
E
2.2. An enquiry is to be conducted against any
person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions
and principles of natural justice. The charges should be
specific, definite and giving details of the incident which
F formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained
on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly,
objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be
perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based
on conjunctures and surmises. There is a distinction in
G proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part
of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct The authority
must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in
the context of the statute defining the misconduct. [Para
29] [141-C-E]
H State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. v. GYAN CHAND CHATTAR 127

AIR1963 SC 1723 and Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR A
1986 SC 995 - relied on.

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari
& Ors. AIR1996 SC 1249; Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B.
Kadam, AIR 1975SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport 8
Corporation v. BasudeoChaudhary & Anr. (1997) 11 SCC
370; Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central Cooperative
Wholesale Stores Ltd. and Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari
Noukarar Sangha & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 517; Kamataka
State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatty AIR 2001 C
SC930; Regional Manager, R.S.R. T.C. v. Ghanshyam
Sharma, (2002)10 SCC 330; Divisional Controller
N.E.K.R. T.C. v. H. Amaresh AIR 2006 SC 2730; U.P.S.R. T.C.
v. Vinod Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 115 and Surath Chandra
Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1971SC 752,
referred to. D

3.1. In the present case, initiation of enquiry against
the respondent appears to be the outcome of anguish of
superior officers as there had been agitation by the
Railway staff demanding the payment of pay and E
allowances and they detained the train illegally and there
has been too much hue and cry for several hours on the
Railway Station. The Enquiry Officer has taken into
consideration the non-existing material and failed to
consider the relevant material and all findings of fact F
recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
[Para 30) [141-F-G]

3.2. There could be no case of substantial·
misdemeanour against the respondent on either of the
aforesaid charges except Charge No. 6 on which major G
penalty could be imposed. Charge No. 6 is totally vague
and no enquiry could be conducted against the
respondent on su.ch a charge. It was basically a case of

H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A no evidence on any charge except Charge Nos. 4 & 5.
[Para 31] (141-G-H; 142-A]

3.3. In fact, it was a simple case where the
respondent failed to prove to be a tactful person or
8 possessing a high standard administrative capability or
firmness or a man possessing quality of leadership. It
might be a case of his indecisiveness or lack of presence
of mind. It cannot be held that any of the aforesaid
...
charges except Charge No. 6, may warrant imposition of
major punishment of removal. [Para 32] (142-8-C]
c
4.1. The High Court after considering the fact that
already 20 years has lapsed and judgment of the Single
Ju(fg:; has not been complied with, considered it better
co close the chapter awarding him 50% of the back
D wages and granted all consequential benefits including
the retiral benefits. [Para 33] (142-C-D]

4.2. The situation has now become worst. About
three decades have elapsed; the respondent has not
E been paid his pay since the date of his suspension i.e.
29, 11.1980, facing the disciplinary proceedings and
litigation, he reached the age of superannuation long
ba¢k. Thus, it is in the interest of justice that his mental
agony and harassment should come to an end. The
appellant is accordingly directed to pay 50% of the pay
F
and allowances without interest till the respondent
reached the age of superannuation and arrears of retiral
benefits with 9% interest. [Paras 34 and 35] [142-E; 142-
F-GJ
G Case Law Reference:
AIR 1996 SC 1249 referred to Para 24
AIR 1975 SC 2025 referred to Para 25
(1997) 11 sec 370 referred to Para 25
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATIAR 129

(2000) 1 sec 511 referred to Para 25 A

AIR 2001 SC 930 referred to Para 25

(2002) 10 sec 330 referred to Para 25

AIR 2006 SC 2730 referred to Para 25
B
(2008) 1 sec 115 referred to Para 25

AIR 1971 SC 752 referred to Para 26
AIR 1963 SC 1723 relied on Para 27
c
AIR 1986 SC 995 relied on Para 28

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4174 of 2003.

From the Judgment & Order dated 1.5.2002 of the High D
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.
25 of 1983.

SWA. Qadri, Sadhana Sandhu, A.K. Sharma and Anil
Katiyar for the Appellants.
E
Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta and Reema Sharma for
the Respondents.

• The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order of the Division Bench
of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad passed in Letters Patent
Appeal No.25 of 1983 by which while affirming the judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.12.1982
passed in Special Civil Application No.101 of 1982 allowed the G

.. cross objections filed by the respondent-employee and set
aside the order giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass
a fresh order of minor punishment on two charges.
/' ,.
H
'
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are
that the respondent-employee Gyan Chand Chattar was
appointed in the Western Railway as Shroff in the Department
of Pay and Cash in the scale of Rs.260-400 w.e.f. 8.2.1971 vide
official letter dated 8.2.1971. He was thereafter posted as
B Cashier in the year 1977 in the pay-scale of Rs.330-480. He
was served a charge sheet dated 8.4.1980 containing 6
charges that he traveled in the train in First Class on
214.11.1979 though he was not entitled to travel in that class; ..
refused to arrange payment of certain amount to the employees
c against bills dated 12.11.1979; 16.11.1979 and 21.11.1979;
while on duty on 24.11.1979 travelling in 1st Class compartment
of the Train, played cards with RPF Rakshaks; that on
24.11.1979 the train in which he was traveling was detained
by the agitators, railway staff who demanded payment of their
D pay allowance, he acted extremely irresponsibly and made no
attempt to convince them about his difficulties; refused to
receive "Control Message"/"Memo" from the superior officer
and wanted commission of 1% for payment of pay allowance
to the employees.

E 3. During the course of enquiry both parties led evidence,
Qral as well as documentary. The Enquiry Officer completed the
enquiry and submitted its report dated 22.4.1981 to the
disciplinary authority holding all six charges proved against the
said respondent-employee. The disciplinary authority agreeing
F with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and
considering the reply to the enquiry report submitted by the
delinquent employee, passed the order of punishment dated
2.5.1981 removing the respondent from service. His appeal
against the said order was allowed partly by the statutory
G appellate authority - Financial adviser and Chief Accounts
Officer, Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay vide order
dated 10.11.1981 reducing the punishment of removal from
service to reversion of the respondent to the lower post of clerk,
Grade-II in the scale of Rs.260-400(R) until he was found fit by
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATTAR 131
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
.;
the competent authority for being considered for the cashier A
post in the scale of Rs.330-560 (R).

4. Being aggrieved the respondent-employee challenged
the order of punishment by filing Special Civil Application
No .101 of 1982 in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and
B
the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated
27.12.1982 wherein the learned Single Judge after
... appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that
only charge which could be found proved against the
respondent-employee was not receiving the memo of superiors
as alleged in charge numbers 4 & 5 against him. All other
c
charges were found unproved. Learned Single Judge issued
a direction to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order
imposing minor punishment on the said proved charge nos.4
& 5 for not accepting the "memo" sent by the superiors.
-; D
5. Being aggrieved the Union of India filed the Letters
Patent Appeal No.25 of 1983 challenging the judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed
vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2002. However, the Division
Bench allowed the counter objections filed by the respondent E
to the extent that the direction given by the learned Single Judge
to impose minor penalty on charge numbers 4 & 5 was also
'y
set aside. However, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Division Bench directed that respondent would
be entitled to get 50% of the back-wages with all consequential F
benefits including retrial benefits. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. SWA Qadri, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that there was no scope of interference
by the High Court in exercise of its limited powers of judicial
review against the finding of facts recorded by the enquiry G
>-- officer, approved by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by
the Appellate Authority. It was a case of gross indiscipline and
of corruption. Six charges against the said employee including
the demand of 1% commission for making the payment of pay
H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A allowances stood proved. Punishment order passed by the
appellate authority did not warrant any interference. More so
there could be no justification for the Division Bench allowing
the counter objections filed by the respondent employee,
quashing the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the
B disciplinary authority to pass an order of minor punishment on
charge nos. 4 & 5. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. On the contrary, Shri Bhargava V. Desai, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-employee submitted that
the High Court after appreciating the entire evidence reached
C the conclusion that there was no occasion for the disciplinary
authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and there was
no evidence on the basis of which any of the charges leveled
against him could be held to have been proved. The High Court
rightly quashed the order of punishment passed by the statutory
D authorities. Division Bench of the High Court set aside the
directi_on to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of
minor punishment, as a period of twenty years had elapsed
arid delinquent had suffered from mental agony and harassment
l1herefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
E
8. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The disciplinary authority framed the following charges
against the respondent-employee.
F
"1. You have traveled in First Class on 24.11.1979 by
. 47 ON. When you are not entitled to this case.

2. You refused to arrange payment of the following
G amounts to the following employees against bill
bearing No.C06 No.EBS/186 dated 12.11.1979, ...,
C06 No.EBS/40 dated 16.11.1979, PMR No.2145 -·
dated 21.11.1979, when the staff approached you
for the said payment:
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATIAR 133 ·
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
(a) Vana Anop. P. Man Rs.476.65 A

(b) Mohan Jetha -do- Rs.211.05

(c) Kesha Bhika -do- Rs.298.00

(d) Raiji Mansukh TIS Rs.256.90 B

(e) Bechav Mansing. -do- Rs.175.00

(f) Manco M. -do- Rs.265.75

(g) Soma Salu P. Man Rs. 92.75 c
3. While you were on duty on 24.11.1979, in 1st Class
compartment train No. 47 DN. you played cards with RPF
Rakshaks on duty. This was contrary to_rules 3(i) (ii) and
·~
3(i) (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 - in that D
you have shown absolutely lack of devotion to duty and your
conduct was unbecoming of a Railway Servant.

4. On 24.11.1979 at about 11.00 hrs. the train No. 47 DN.
was detained by agitators, Railway staff who demanded
payment of their pay allowance covered under PMR E
No.2145 dated 20.11.1979. Even after knowing about this
detention as a Railway men you acted extremely
,_ irresponsibly and made no attempt to convince them about
your difficulties. On the other hand you refused to receive
"Control Message"/Memo" from DOS leading to greater F
detention of the train.

5. In the back ground of detention of train brought out under
charge No.4 Sr. DAO/BRC was contacted by control and
he wanted you to speak to him in control. When you were G
)>.
told about this and were handed over control message/
memo to this effect - you refused to accept the said memo
thereby sowing a great sense of irresponsibility, lack of ·
duty and a willful disobedience of orders of your superiors.
H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 10 S.C.R.

A 6. It is also alleged by the staff of Chandodia station that
you refused to make payment to the concerned staff on
24.11.1979 because you wanted a commission of 1% on
the arrears which the staff were unwilling to pay. Your
refusal to make the payment on the said day and the
B consequent agitations and detention of train arose from
your alleged malafide intention of receiving commission on
the arrears payment."

10. Enquiry Officer found all the six charges proved against
the delinquent. The disciplinary authority agreed with those
c fin<ilings and imposed the punishment of removal from service
which was modified by the appellate authority imposing the
punishment of reversion to lower rank .. The learned Single
Ju<tlge dealt with all the issues elaborately. The judgment runs
to 140 pages.
D ..
11. In order to appreciate the facts in correct perspective,
it may be necessary to make reference to the findings recorded
by the learned Single Judge and the grounds on which the
opinion had been formed. So far as Issue No.1 is concerned,
E after appreciating the evidence, the learned Single Judge
came to the conclusion that the respondent had been asked
by the higher authorities to travel by 47 DN. known as Viramgam
passenger for disbursing the cash as the regular disbursing
cashier was ill. Thus, the respondent employee had traveled in
F first class compartment. However, the said charge could not
have been held proved unless a finding of fact was recorded
by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority that he was
not entitled to travel in first class compartment. Certain circulars
had been referred to and relied upon by the respondent-
employee that for a person performing such a duty, there has
G
to be reservation in second class compartment by the railway
department itself; otherwise he would be entitled to travel in first -4

class compartment. As the second component of the issue, i.e.
as to whether the respondent was entitled to travel in first class
compartment or not had not been dealt with at all, the first
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATIAR 135
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
. charge could not be held to have been proved. The learned A
-.. Single Judge held that as per the submissions made by the
respondent employee before the department in the enquiry and
in the memo of appeal that he was entitled to travel by first class
compartment to facilitate safety of the cash and its transaction
and nothing contrary having been proved, it was not a charge B
in which it could be held that the railway employee committed
a misconduct warranting major punishment of removal from
service or reduction in rank in such facts and circumstances.
The learned Single Judge reached the following conclusion:

"it must be held that so far as charge No.1 is c
concerned, it is not established on the record of this case
... in the light of the evidence led before the inquiry officer and
even on the basis of the findings arrived at by him on that
charge ................ the findings arrived at by the inquiry
officer on charge No.1 do not show that all the basic D
requirements and ingredients of charge No.1 have been
brought home to the petitioner and on the contrary, the
ultimate finding on charge No.1 as arrived at by the inquiry
officer is not supported by evidence on record and is totally
perverse. Consequently, it must be held that charge No.1 E
is not legally proved against the petitioner."

- '
)-
12. So far as the Charge No. 2 is concerned, learned
Single Judge referred to the departmental circulars particularly
office circular No.23 of 1969 which provided that the F
disbursement of amount of more than Rs.500/- could not be
made without securing the presence of a Gazetted Officer to
witness the payment. During the transaction, the respondent
employee made his stand clear that as no Gazetted Officer was
available at Chandlodia, the disbursement was not permissible
G
.. ~
and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that mere
error of judgment or lack of tact on the part of the employee
could not make him liable to face disciplinary proceeding in
such circumstances. Therefore, the charge No.2 was not found
to be proved.
H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 13. The charge No.3 has been dealt with elaborately by ..
the learned Single Judge and came to the conclusion that the ....
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that respondent was
playing cards with RPF Raksaks while making disbursement
of the amount was totally baseless as the evidence at the most
8 could be that in the course of journey towards his destination
the respondent to while-away time played cards with RPF
Raksaks. That could not be a conduct of unbecoming of a
railway employee on duty as Rule 3(i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway
Services Conduct Rules, 1966 provided that every railway
c devotion toshall
employee (i) maintain absolute integrity ; (ii) maintain
duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a
railway or Government servant. Thus, the conclusion was that
there was no evidence to support the charge against him as
the respondent did nothing which may fell within the mischief
--
of either of the above clauses of Rule 3 of the Rules 1966.
D
14. The charge no.4 had been that the respoQ..dent-
employee had shown extreme irresponsibility and made no
attempt to convince the agitators, Railway staff who demanded
payment of their pay allowance and diJ not receive the control
E mess!age. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion
...
that so far as the first part of the allegation is concerned he may
be failling in being tactful but it cannot be a case of misconduct
and on his count, no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated
against him. However, he was found guilty of not receiving the
F ."control message".
1
-
1!5. Charge No.5 was also found to be proved as the
employee refused to receive the "message"/ "memo" of his
supe~iors.

G 16. So far as charge no.6 i.e. asking for 1% commission
for making the payment of pay allowances is concerned, the -I .
learned Single Judge has appreciated the evidence of all the
witnesses examined in this regard and came to the conclusion
that not a single person had deposed before the Enquiry Officer
H that the respondent employee had asked any person to pay 1%
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATIAR 137
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
commission for making payment of their allowances. It was A
.. based on hearsay statements. All the witnesses stated that this
could be the motive/reason for not making the payment. Such
a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt
as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the
concerned employee. He would be liable to be prosecuted and B
would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in
such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi criminal
nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt
and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities.
Witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer that they c
have heard that the said respondent was asking but none of
them was able to point out who was that person who had been
asked to pay 1% commission. One of such witnesses deposed
that some unknown person had told him. Learned Single Judge
came to the conclusion that the knowledge of the witnesses in D
this regard was based on "hearsay statement of some unknown
persons whom they did not know''. This was certainly not legal
evidence to sustain such a serious charge of corruption against
an employee.

17. Thus, the writ petition was disposed of directing the E
disciplinary authority to impose a minor penalty on the charges
of not receiving the control message/memo.
)'
.... 18. The Division Bench after considering the facts involved
herein, came to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded F
by the learned Single Judge did not warrant any interference
being based on evidence available on record. As a long time
of about two decades had elapsed and the respondent
employee was not granted any benefit of the judgment and
order of the learned single Judge and it was a case of no G
.. evidence except on charge nos.4 & 5 and the said employee
" had already suffered a lot, the matter should come to an end.
The court issued the following directions.

"it would be just and reasonable to direct the
H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009J 10 S.C.R.

A appellants authorities to pay 50% of the back wages and .
all the consequential benefits including the retiral benefits
without further imposing any minor penalty as directed by
the learned Single Judge."

19. We have considered the aforesaid findings recorded
B
by the Courts below in the light of the evidence on record.
Admittedly, all the charges except Charge No. 2 are in respect
of various incidents occurred on the same date i.e. on
24.11.1979. Charge No. 2 related to the incidents dated
12.11,1979, 16.11.1979 and 21.11.1979 which had been in
c close proximity of subsequent incidents occurred on
24.11.1979. The Enquiry Officer while dealing with Charge No.
1 held that respondent employee did not travel in second class ·"
compartment as admittedly there was no reservation for him
in that class. The Enquiry Officer failed to examine the issue
D further as to whether in such a fact situation, the respondent
was entitled to travel in first class. Thus, on Charge No. 1,
enqui:ry was not complete. Thus, no finding could be recorded
holding the respondent guilty of misconduct on this count.

E 20. On 2nd Charge, explanation furnished by the
respondent that it was not possible for him to disburse the pay
and allowances in the absence of a Gazetted Officer as it was
more than Rs.500/-, was worth acceptance in the light of
1 >
circulars issued by the Railway itself. Therefore, refusal to
F disburse the pay allowances by the delinquent could not be
termed as misconduct.

21. Charge No. 3 was in respect of playing cards with RPF
Raksaks during disbursement of pay and allowances. The
delinquent was found playing cards during the course of journey
G but there had been no actual disbursement of any pay and
allowances to anyone at the relevant time. Therefore, the -.\ ..
Enquiry Officer has not considernd the issue in correct
perspective.

H 22. Charge No. 4 & 5 have partly been found proved by
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATIAR 139
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the learned Single Judge to the extent that he refused to accept A
_,
the 'control message'/'memo'. But for that also, major
punishment could not be imposed.

23. Charge No. 6 was basically based on hearsay
statement and it is difficult to assume as to whether enquiry B
could be held on such a vague charge. The Charge No. 6 does
not reveal as who was the person who had been asked by the
respondent to pay 1 % commission for payment of pay
allowances. It is an admitted position that if a charge of
corruption is proved, no punishment other that dismissal can
be awarded.
c
24. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan
4. Bihari & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1249, this Court held as under:

"In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving D ,.
corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than
dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally
uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount
misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of
misappropriation that is relevant."
E
25. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025;
/:J.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo
-lo._
~ Chaudhary & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar South
Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. F
Secreatry, Sahakari Noukarar Sangha & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC
517; Karnataka State Road Transporl Corporation v. B. S.
Hullikatty, AIR 2001 SC 930; Regional Manager, R.S.R. T.C.
v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330; Divisional
Controller N.E.K.R. T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730; G
and U.P.S.R. T.C. v. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 wherein
'I' >- it has been held that the punishment should always be
proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case
of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service
Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal ,_
consequences.

2$. In Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West
Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, this Court held that it is not
permissible to hold an enquirv on a vague charge as the same
B
does not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an
effective defence because he may not be aware as what is the
allegation against him and what kind of defence he can put in
rebuttal thereof. This Court observed as under :

c "The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have
to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges
which have to be communicated to the person charged
together with a statement of the a/legations on which each
charge is based and any other circumstance which it is
-
D proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders
has to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is
one of the specific contents of a reasonable or and
definitely what the allegations are on which the charges
preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by
E projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and
circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the
authorities to be established against him." (Emphasis
added)

27. In a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with •
F the statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific
in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of
charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same
document, it may not be held that as the charge was not
specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide
G State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR
1963 SC 1723). Thus, where a delinquent is served a charge-
~ \
sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no
statement of allegation is served along with the charge-sheet,
the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in
H violation of the principles of natural justice.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GYAN CHAND CHATTAR 141
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

28. In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC A
-,j
995, this Court held that even in a domestic enquiry, the charge
-- must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for
any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced
should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take
the defence or make a protest against that the charges are B
vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for
the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly, in
respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences.

29. In view of the above, law can be summarized that an
enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict
c
adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural
justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving
'...., ....,
details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No
enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be
conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should D
:,
not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be
based on conjunctures and surmises. There is a distinction in
proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the
delinquent cannot oe a misconduct The authority must record
reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the E
statute defining the misconduct.

30. In fact, initiation of the enquiry against the respondent
appears to be the outcome of anguish of superior officers as ·
·•· there had been agitation by the Railway staff demanding the F
payment of pay and allowances and they detained the train
illegally and there has been too much hue and cry for several
hours on the Railway Station. The Enquiry Officer has taken into
consideration the non-existing material and failed to consider
the relevant material and finding of all facts recorded by him G
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
:}
31. There could be no case of substantial misdemeanour
against the respondent on either of the aforesaid charges
except Charge No. 6 on which major penalty could be imposed.
Charge No. 6 is totally vague and no enquiry could be H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A conducted against the respondent on such a charge. It was
basically a case of no evidence on any charge except Charge --
Nos. 4 & 5.

32. In fact, it was a simple case where the respondent
employee failed to prove to be a tactful person or possessing
8
a high standard administrative capability or firmness or a man
of possessing quality of leadership. It might be a case of his
indecisiveness or lack of presence of mind. It cannot be held
that any of the aforesaid charges except Charge No. 6, may
warrant imposition of major punishment of removal. Thus, no
c interference is required in the matter.
33. The Division Bench, after considering the fact that
already 20 years has lapsed and judgment of the learned
Single Judge has not be complied with, considered it better to
-
D close the chapter awarding him 50% of the back wages and
granted all consequential benefits including the retiral benefits.

34. Today, the situation has become worst. About three
decades have elapsed; the respondent has not been paid his
pay since the date of his suspension i.e. 29.11.1980, facing
E
the disciplinary proceedings and litigation, he reached the age
of superannuation long back. Thus, it is in the interest of justice
that his mental agony and harassment should come to an end.

35. Therefore, we dispose of the appeal directing the •
F present appellant to pay 50% of the pay and allowances without
interest till the respondent reached the age of superannuation
and arrears of retiral benefits with 9% interest to the
respondent-employee within a period of three months from
today.
G
8.8.8. Appeal disposed of.
.\ .