When the Mouth of Defence Is Sewn Shut, the Voice of Justice Cannot Be Heard: Supreme Court Quashes Railway Dismissal for Denial of Cross-Examination

Natural Justice Is Not a Ritual—It Is the Soul of Fair Enquiry - In a compelling reaffirmation of procedural fairness, the Supreme Court of India ruled on October 27, 2025, that dismissal of a government employee without allowing cross-examination of key witnesses violates the core of natural justice and renders the entire enquiry void.

The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized that a departmental proceeding, though not governed by the strict rules of evidence, “cannot survive on the ashes of untested testimony.” The Court held that reliance on the written statement of the main complainant, who was never examined, constituted a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

“Cross-Examination Is the Brightest Torch to Find the Truth” — Court Defends the Essence of Fair Procedure

The case concerned a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) of Central Railway, Nagpur, who was dismissed in 1996 after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of demanding illegal gratification during a vigilance check in 1988. The enquiry report rested heavily on a written complaint by one Hemant Kumar, a passenger, who was never called to depose nor subjected to cross-examination.

The Supreme Court, restoring the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision that had quashed the dismissal, observed:

“A finding based upon a statement which the delinquent had no opportunity to test through cross-examination is no finding at all—it is merely an echo of suspicion masquerading as proof.”

The Court declared that even in domestic enquiries, “the right of cross-examination is the living limb of fairness,” and denial of this right “cuts the heart out of natural justice.”

“A Judge Cannot Build Conviction Upon the Silence of Witnesses” — Court Rejects Reliance on Hearsay

The Bench criticized the departmental authorities for relying upon the written version of Hemant Kumar while ignoring the oral testimony of two other passengers who categorically denied that the TTE had demanded any bribe. The Court noted that their statements were “distorted to fit the narrative of guilt,” and described such a process as “an inversion of justice, not its application.”

Rebuking the High Court for treating this defective enquiry as valid, the Court held:

“Judicial review does not end at the doorstep of departmental discretion. When evidence is perverse, the courts must open the door of correction.”

“Natural Justice Is the Shield of the Innocent and the Burden of the State”

The judgment underlined that the doctrine of natural justice is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive guarantee that preserves the legitimacy of administrative power. The Court cautioned, “Natural justice is not a decorative phrase—it is the shield of the innocent and the burden of the State.”

It directed the Central Railway to release all monetary and pensionary benefits to the deceased employee’s heirs within three months, closing a dispute that had lingered for nearly four decades.

By reinstating the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, the Supreme Court has sent a powerful message: disciplinary authority must be exercised with fairness, not with haste. The ruling reminds public employers that justice in administration is not achieved merely by finding guilt but by ensuring that guilt is established through fair process.

As the Court memorably concluded, “Natural justice may move at the pace of procedure, but it must always arrive before punishment.”

Date of Decision: October 27, 2025