Holding

The disciplinary authority acted beyond its statutory powers; the removal order is unsustainable and the matter must be remitted to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration.

Summary

Mathura Prasad, a casual labourer, was shortlisted for regularisation and his service card was sent for verification, where it was deemed fake. A departmental inquiry was held, but the inquiry officer’s report did not clearly state whether the card was genuine. The disciplinary authority sent a demi‑official letter asking for clarification, without granting a further hearing, and the officer again concluded the card was forged. On this basis the disciplinary authority removed the employee, a decision confirmed by the appellate authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal reinstated him with 50% back‑wages, but the High Court set aside that order. The Supreme Court examined whether the disciplinary authority complied with the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, particularly Rule 10(2) and (3). It held that the authority exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a demi‑official direction instead of a valid order, failed to record reasons, denied a hearing and imposed a vague punishment. Consequently the removal order was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed, with the matter remitted to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

Whether the disciplinary authority complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 10(2) and Rule 10(3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
Whether a demi‑official letter constitutes a valid order under the Rules.
Whether the removal from service is valid in view of the procedural deficiencies.
Whether judicial review is available for errors of law or fact in disciplinary proceedings.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968s. Rule 10(2), s. Rule 10(3)

Subjects

service lawmisconductdisciplinary proceedingRailway Servants Rulesjudicial reviewprocedural fairnessremoval from servicecasual labourfake service card

Judgment

A MATHURA PRASAD
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 1, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Service Law-Misconduct-Allegation against casual labour that he
obtained regular appointment by using fake service card-Departmental
C enquiry-Statutory procedure t1elating to conduct of disciplinary proceeding
as prescribed under the Rules not complied with-Held: There was an error
of law-Hence, punishment of removal by disciplinary authority not
sustainable-Matter remitted to disciplinary authority-Railway Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968-Rules 10(2) and 10(3).

D Administrative Law-Judicial Review-Scope of-Held: Judicial review
would lie if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record-Even
an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the principles of judicial
review.

Appellant, engaged as a casual labour from time to time, was issued a
E service card. Pursuant to a scheme of regularization, his name was short-
listed and his service card was sent for verification. The card was found to be
fake by the Verifying Authority pursuant to which Departmental Inquiry was
initiated. It was alleged that Appellant obtained appointment by using a fake
service card. The Inquiry Officer reported contents of the service card to be
correct but did not record whether the service card was genuine or fake.
F Disciplinary authority sent back the Inquiry Report by way of a demi-official
letter to tile Inquiry Officer, asking him to give clear remarks about every
charge framed and re-submit the Inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer, however,
without any further inquiry and without giving any further opportunity of
hearing to Appellant, opined that the said service card was fake on the ground
G that it was not issued by the RTI. Relying on the Inquiry Report, punishment
of removal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority which was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Tribunal however directed re-
instatement of Appellant but with 50% back-wages. The order was reversed
by High Court on filing of writ petition by Respondent.

H 264
MATHURA PRASAD v. U.O.I. 265
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is A
whether statutory procedure relating to conduct of disciplinary proceeding·
as prescribed under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968,
were not complied with and hence the punishment of removal imposed by the
Disciplinary authority was not sustainable.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to disciplinary authority, B
the Court

HELD: 1.1. The disciplinary authority merely sent a demi-official letter
to the Inquiry Officer. He did not pass any order. The file was sent back to
him for a clear remark on every point of charges framed against Appellant
It could not have been either an order passed in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule C
10 or sub-Rule (3) of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
The disciplinary authority was a statutory authority. He was, therefore, bound
to act within the four corners of the statute. Procedures relating to conduct
of a disciplinary proceeding have been laid down by the Rules. He was bound
to follow the same scrupulously. It is one thing to say that he wanted the D
Inquiry Officer to state the points to clear the said findings arrived at by him
on each of the charges separately, but he did not have his jurisdiction to issue
the direction under either of the sub-rules of Rule 10. Inquiry Officer held a
further enquiry in furtherance of the direction of the disciplinary authority.
He proceeded on the basis that his Disciplinary Authority required him to
hold further enquiry. Inquiry Officer, therefore, pursuant thereto or in E
furtherance of the said letter issued by the disciplinary authority could not
have arrived at a different finding, when no further opportunity was given to
Appellant herein and no reason was recorded therefor. Even in his report he
arrived at the conclusion that the service card was forged only because the
purported card had not been issued by RTJ. Whether any of the entries p
contained in the said card was correct or not, was not verified. It could not
have been held to have no relevance for arriving at a finding that the same
was a forged one. (270-F-H; 271-A, BJ

1.2. The punishment proposed was vague. The Tribunal, therefore,
although relied on sub-Rule(3) of Rule 10, arrived at the right conclusion as G
the matter having not been remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for a further
inquiry under sub-Rule (2) of Rule IO, the same was illegal and without
. jurisdiction. (271-DI

1.3. The Inquiry Officer in his first report might not have specifically
recorded his findings with reference to each of the charges levelled against H
266 SUPREME COURT RHORTS (2006J SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Appellant but he arrived at a finding on analysis of the materials on record.
If he was to differ with the said findings on the basis of any fresh materials,
he was enjoined with a duty to grant another opportunity of hearing to
Appellant. (271-Fl
1.4. Even if the Inquiry Officer had, in his first report, proceeded on
B surmises and conjectures as was observed by the High Court, the disciplinary
authority could disagree with the said finding but it was, therefor, required to
record its reasons. No reason was recorded. Sub~Rules (2) and (3) of Rule J 0
aim at achieving the same purpose. If sufficient materials are not available
on record, a direction for holding a further inquiry may be issued in terms of
su~Rule (2) of Rule 10 so as to enable the department to lead further evidence
C before him. For the said purpose also, reasons are required to be· recorded by
the disciplinary authority. An opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer
is required to be given. However, in the event, the disciplinary authority comes
to the conclusion th~t the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on the
basis of materials placed by the parties are incorrect, he may disagree with
D the said findings but even, therefor, he is required to record reasons in support
thereof. The requirement of sub-Rule (2) or sub-Rule (3) having not been
complied with, the Inquiry Officer could not have arrived at a different finding.
The High Court unfortunately did not consider this aspect of the matter.
[271-G-H; 272-A-B)
E 2. When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is
sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under sub-
Rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a judicial
review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the
record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in
the statute or passes an order without application of mind, judicial review would
F be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the
principles of judicial review. (272-C-D]
Shri S.N. Chandra Shekhar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2006]
3 sec 208, referred to.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4634 of2006.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2005 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 2265/200 I.

Prakash Shrivastava for the Appellant.

H
MATHURA PRASAD v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

R. Mohan, A.S.G., T.S. Doabia, Sunita Shanna, D.S. Mahra and B.Krishna1 A
Prasad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
!B
Appellant was engaged as a casual labour in the year 1978 for a periodj
of four months. He was posted in Ganj Basoda Station. Subsequently, he was:
appointed at Bina Depot in the year 1981 and served upto 30.6.1982. He was!
I
appointed similarly on a few more occasions and was declared as a monthly1
rated casual labour in 1986. He was issued a service card wherein the details!
of his service as a casual labour were recorded from time to time. Service Card! C
contained the particulars of the places, number of days and the capacity in!
which he had worked.

Pursuant to or in furtherance of a scheme ofregularization in 1989, hisi
name was short-listed. The service card was sent for verification. A purported! D
report dated 31.5.1990 was sent by an Electrical Foreman, Ganj Basoda
challenging that· it was a fake one; whereupon a major penalty was imposed
on him, inter alia, on the charges; firstly, his service card bearing No. 303774
was fake; and secondly, that he secured employment on the basis of the fakei
~~~ '

iE
A departmental inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer uponl
considering the materials placed on records in his report, stated:- 1

"This employee worked with the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena. Hisj
record was said to be at Beena with the IOW (East) but it came to bei
known from there that the record 1.0.W. (M) was with the petitioner.I F
Having gone there the matter was worked in to. There the full record j

of Works Inspector (Pul) Beena became available. I.O.W. (M) Vidishai
gave it in writing that Shri Mathura Prasad S/o Babu Lal as per his!
service card No. 303774 worked under the Works Inspector (Pul)/
Beena as canal Khalasi w.e.f. 30.6.81 to 18.7.81 who is mentioned atl
S.No. 101 in the L.T.I. Register and at that time he was working under! G
the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena K.L. Shridhaaran. NCMR Sheet wasl
also seen. The n~me of the employee is mentioned in sheet No. 66253!
of 18.7.81."
i
The disciplinary authority was, however, not satisfied with the report.j H
It was sent it back to the Inquiry Officer under a demi-official letter datedl
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A 2.11.1993 stating:-
"You were nominated as enquiry officer in case of S-5 served to Shri
Mathura Prasad, MRCL Khalasi on dated 5.7.90. You have submitted
your enquiry report on 15.10.93, while going through enquiry report,
it is not clear how you have come on the conclusion and you have
B given the final findings.

The file is being sent to you back. Kindly submit your report
giving clear remarks about every points of charges framed in SF-5.

You are hereby advised to re-submit your enquiry report by
C enquiring properly to this office immediately."

Without any further inquiry and without giving any further opportunity
of hearing to Appellant, the Inquiry Officer opined that the said service card
was fake, stating:-

D "On 4.12.93 the perusal of the recl)rd of the matter of the A.R.E. Shri
S.C. Upadhyaya also was made and it was given in writing to Shri
l·
Mathura Prasad S/o Babu Lal that the service card bearing No. 303774,
the copy of which has been given on 3.3.92 has not been issued by
the R.T.I. (Sec) Gunjbasoda but according to that your name has been
showed against the T.I. of Phu lie at S.No. 8 in the L. T.I. Register which
E has not been verified by any of the FRTI (Sec.) which is at page No.
64 and bears the signatures of the ARE and Mathura Prasad.

From this thing it transpires that the card No. 303774, which has been
given to Mathura Prasad S/o Babu Lal, has not been issued by RTI
(Sec.) Gunjbasoda. Therefore, this card is forged."
F
Relying on or on the basis of said purported report of the Inquiry
Officer, punishment of removal from service was imposed by the disciplinary
authority by an order dated 26/28.4.1994. The punishment of removal of
service of Appellant was confirmed by an order dated 7. 7 .1994 passed by the
Appellate Authority i.e. Upper Divisional Electrical Engineer, Bhopal.
G
Appellant filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, questionin.g the said order of the disciplinary authority as also the
Appellate Authority. By a judgment and order dated 13,2.2001, the Tribunal
allowed the said application and directed reinstatement of Appellant with
H consequential benefit but with 50% back-wages. The Tribunal arrived at the
said conclusion on the premise that the disciplinary authority at the first
MATHURA PRASAD v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 269
instance having differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer was enjoined A
with a duty to record reasons therefor and record its own findings on the said
charge that the evidence was sufficient for the purpose as required under
Rule 10(3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for
short the Rules). It was further held by the Tribunal that there was no finding
with regard to endorsements of work rendered by Appellant between 1978 to B
1986 contained in the service card of Appellant are inaccurate in particulars.

Respondent herein preferred a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh
High Court thereagainst wherein, inter alia, it was contended that a finding
of fact having been arrived at by the disciplinary authority that the service
card was fake, the Tribunal could not have interfered therewith. It was further C
contended that only because the entries therein were in relation to the service
by Respondent-Appellant, the same by itself was not a fresh ground for
overturning the finding of the disciplinary authority. The High Court agreed
_with the said contentions and allowed the Writ Petition, inter alia, holding:-

"The Inquiry Officer surmised that as the entries in the service card D
was not issued by the PW-I, Ganj Basoda, when he submitted the first
report. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority wanted him to give specific
findings thereon and he gave further finding that the card was a fake.
"Therefore, the second inquiry report is virtually a continuation of the
first inquiry report and the second report rightly considered the charge
and recorded appropriate findings therein which he had failed to do E
in the first report. The fact that the first respondent might have served
as Casual Labourer in the year 1978 and again from 1981 to 1983 and
from 1985 to 1989 as per the endorsements contained in the service
card, to repeat, is not relevant. The charge was not that the first
respondent did not serve during that periods. The charge was that he p
obtained fake service card where several entries were genuinely made.
It is apparent that when such entries were made in the years 198 t and
1985, the authorities were not aware that the service card was a fake.
Only when it was sent for verification to the authority who is said to
have issued the service card, it was found that the service card was
not issued by that office and it was realized that it was a fake." G
The short question which falls for our consideration is application of
sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule lO of the Rules.

Rules were framed by the Union of India in exercise of its jurisdiction
under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Sub- H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Rules (2) and (3) of Rule IO of the Rules read thus:-

"IO. Action on the Inquiry report.

(I) ...

(2) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority
B may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the
inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring
authority shall thereupon proceed to hold further inquiry according to
the provisions of Rule 9 as far as may be.

(3). The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of.
c .the inquiring authority. on any article of charge, regards its reasons
for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge,
if the evidence on record, is sufficient for the purpose."

Indisputably the Inquiry Officer was enjoined with a duty to enquire
D into the charges of misconduct levelled against Appellant. He enquired into
the matter. He found that the contents of the service card were correct. In
other words, the particulars in regard to the period of work, place of work and .
the nature of work entered into therein were correct. It might not have been
recorded that the service card was genuine or fake but substance of the
allegation againstAppellant was as to whether he had obtained an appointment
E by using a fake service card.

The disciplinary authority merely sent a demi-official letter to the Inquiry
Officer. He did not pass any order. The file was sent back to him for a clear
remark on every point of charges framed against Appellant. It could not have
been either an order passed in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule I 0 or sub-Rule
F (3) thereof. The disciplinary authority was a statutory authority. He was,
therefore, hound to act within the four comers of the statute. Procedures
relating to conduct of a disciplinary proceeding. have been laid down. by the
Rules. He was bound to follow the same scmpulously. It is one thing to say
that he wanted the Inquiry Officer to state the points to clear the said findings
G arrived at by him on each of the charges separately, but he did not have his
jurisdiction to issue the direction under either of the sub-rules of Rtile I 0.
Inquiry Officer held a further enquiry in furtherance of the direction of the
disciplinary authority. He proceeded on the basis that his Disciplinary ..
Authority required him to hold further enquiry. Inquiry Officer, therefore,
pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said Jetter dated 2: 1.1993 issued· by
H
MATHURA PRASAD v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 271
the disciplinary authority could not have arrived at a different finding, when A
no further opportunity was given to Appellant herein and no reason was
recorded therefor. Even in his report dated 21.12.1993 he arrived at the
conclusion that the service card was forged only because the purported card
had not been issued by RTI (Sec), Ganj Basoda.
I

Whether any of the entries contained in the said card was correct or B
not, was not verified. It could not have been held to have no relevance for
arriving at a finding that the same was a forged one.

Curiously the disciplinary authority in its order dated 26.4.1994, inter
alia, recorded:-
c
"I have decided to impose upon you the penalty of compulsory
retirement/removal/dismissal from service. You are therefore,
~ompulsorily retired/removed/dismissed from service with ... "

The punishment proposed was vague. The Tribunal, therefore, although
relied on sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10, in our opinion, arrived at the right conclusion D
as the matter having not been remitted to the disciplinary authority for a
further inquiry under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules, the same was illegal
and without jurisdiction. It had not been disputed before us and it would be
.. a mere repetition to state that the entries contained in the service record were
correct. The High Court, therefore, may not be correct in arriving at its E,
conclusion in its judgment.

The Inquiry Officer in his first report might not have specifically recorded
his findings with reference to each of the charges levelled against Appellant
but he arrived at a finding on analysis of the materials on record. If he was
to differ with the said findings on the basis of any fresh materials, he was F
enjoined with a duty to grant another opportunity of hearing to Appellant.

Even ifthe Inquiry Officer had, in his first report, proceeded on surmises
and conjectures as was observed by the High Court, the disciplinary authority
could disagree with the said finding but it was, therefor, required to record
its reasons. No reason was recorded. Sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 10 aim at G
achieving the same purpose. If sufficient materials are not available on record,
a direction for holding a further inquiry may be issued in terms of sub-Rule
(2) ot' Rule 10 so as to enable the department to lead further evidence before
him. For the said purpose also, reasons are required to be recorded by the
disciplinary authority. An opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer is H ,
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A required to be given. However, in the event, the disciplinary authority comes
to the conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on the
basis of materials placed by the parties are incorrect, he may disagree with
the said findings but even, therefor, he is required to record reasons in
support thereof. The requirement of sub-Rule (2) or sub-Rule (3) having not
B been complied with, the Inquiry Officer could not have arrived at a different
finding. The High Court unfortunately did not consider this aspect of the
matter.

When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is
sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under sub-
C Rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a judicial
review would lie even if there is an error of Jaw apparent on the face of the
record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in
the statute or passes an order without application of mind, judicial review
would be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract
the principles of judicial review.
D
Shri SN. Chandra Shekhar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2006]
3 SCC 208 wherein this Court held:-

"34. The Authority, therefore, posed unto itself a wrong question.
What, therefore, was necessary to be considered by BOA was wt.ether
E the ingredients contained in Section 14-A of the Act were fulfilled and
whether the requirements of the proviso appended thereto are satisfied.
If the same had not been satisfied, the requilements of the law must
be held to have not been satisfied. If there had been no proper
application of mind as regards the requirements of Jaw, the State and
the Planning Authority must be held to have misdirected themselves
F in law which would vitiate the impugned judgment.

35. In Hindustan Petrolevm Corpn. ;.td. v. Darius Shapur Chenai,
this Court referring to Cho/an Roadways Ltd. v. G.
Thirugnanasambandam held: (SCC p. 637, para 14)

G 14. Even a judicial review on facts in certain situations may be
available. In Cho/an Roadways Ltd v. G. Thirugnanasambandam,
this Court observed: (SCC 253, paras 34-35)

'34 .. .It is now well settled that a quasi-judicial authority must
pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct
H finding of fact. A wrong question posed leads to a wrong answer.
- MATHURAPRASADv. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA,J.] 273
In this case, furthermore, the misdirection in law committed by A
the Industrial Tribunal was apparent insofar as it did not apply
the principle of res ipsa loquitur which was relevant for the
purpose of this l:ase and, thus, failed to take into consideration
a relevant factor and furthermore took into consideration an
irrelevant fact not germane for determining the issue, namely, that B
the passengers of the bus were mandatorily required to be
examined. The Industrial Tribunal further failed to apply the correct
standard of proof in relation to a domestic enquiry, which is
"preponderance of probability" and applied the standard of proof
required for a criminal trial. A case for judicial review was, thus,
clearly made out. ~
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of judicial review.
(See E. v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt). Reference in this
connection may also be made to an interesting article by Paul P.
Craig, Q.C. titled "Judicial Review, Appeal and Factual Error"
published in 2004 Public Law, p. 788. "' D
(See also Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, SCC
paras 23 & 24.)
36. Tht order passed by the statutory authority, it is trite, must
be judged on the basis of the contents thereof and not as
explained in affidavit. (See Bangalore Development Authority v. E
R. Hanumaiah)."

The said dicta shall apply to the facts of the present appeal also.

The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. The appeal is,
thus, allowed. However, the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority. It F
may pass an appropriate order upon application of his mind afresh in the light
of the observations made hereinabove. •

Appellant is entitled to costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.15,000/-.

8.8.8. Appeal allowed.