Top court directs Railways to act against negligent officials and catering management lapses

Supreme Court orders Railways Ministry to act against negligent officials in Mumbai catering scandal, corrective measures required.

The Supreme Court directed the Railways Ministry on Wednesday (January 29, 2025) to act against negligent Railway officials, in the case of extensive irregularities in the management of catering stalls in its Mumbai division. Corrective measures must be taken on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) report within three months, and a report is to be sent to the SC registry, it said.

In an order dated January 21, the SC observed that a complaint alleging fraud to the tune of almost ₹95 lakh was received before the Special Judge of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after which reports were sought from the CBI and CVC. A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar observed that there were administrative lapses on the part of Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), and serious negligence on the part of divisional officials.

The complaint said these rail officials have been undervaluing the sales of vends such as Coffee Day and Tibbs Frankie, allowing them to operate without valid licenses for multiple years, in violation of the Railway Catering Policy.

The seven officials against whom an inquiry was conducted include Atul Rane, former CPRO, Central Railway, and those working in the catering division: S.S. Patange, Manik Ram, Sudhakar, Ghodke, M.D. Srivastava, and Suresh Saxena.

A CVC inquiry held the IRCTC administration responsible for the huge outstanding dues, and said that divisional officials must be held responsible for negligence on their part. The bench also observed that the CVC report must be implemented by the Railways.

“Report of CVC shall be looked into by the Railway administration and placed before competent authorities for taking action within a month and the corrective actions be taken within three months, and a report to that effect be sent to the Registry of this court for placing on record,” the SC said.

“The report, in fact, vindicates the contents of the complaint. The observations made in the report say that there had been complaints against the licensees and that they failed to pay the license fees despite repeated notices,” Mr. Ashish Vashishtha, the complainant’s lawyer argued. “The report gives clear conclusions and fixes responsibility of the officials concerned,” he added.