An Interesting Court Case

 

I was the Works Manager in the Railway Signal & Telecommunication Workshop at Podanur near Coimbatore. An interesting court case developed needing my evidence.

This particular incident in 1969 involved drinking during duty hours. It was a Saturday morning in January. Two workers  were working in a secluded area where no one else was present. The foreman Balakrishnan made his rounds in the area and found the two drinking liquor brought in in a tiffin carrier. His assistant Anthony was also a witness. Balakrishnan immediately reported the matter to me. I ordered the security personnel to remove the workers from the place of work and take them to the Railway Hospital nearby for a test. The two begged the security personnel to permit them to meet me and they were brought in. They pleaded with me to pardon them and let them off, promising that they will not repeat the offence. I was very strict and told them that they will have to face the consequences of their action. They were then taken to the doctor in charge at the Railway Hospital. The doctor was scared and took a very safe stand that the hospital did not have the facility. The two were then taken to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore. Fortunately for them, a nurse was related to one of them and they managed to get a certificate that there was no trace of liquor.

The next eight days, the workshop was closed for annual maintenance work during the Pongal season as was the practice. When the workshop reopened, the two workers gave a letter that they had been falsely implicated by the foreman and unless suitable disciplinary action is taken against the foreman, they will seek justice in a court of law. This was a case of extreme indiscipline and I did not want them to have their way. I got charge sheets issued to both of them based on the evidence available and appointed the accountant as the enquiry officer. The accountant was scared to handle the case.

The workers then went to court. The magistrate court at Coimbatore dismissed the case as frivolous. They went on appeal. And the district court decided that the case should be heard by the magistrate at Tiruppur.

The year 1969 proved to be a year of many events very good and not so good professionally.  I was again deputed for some refresher course at Railway Staff College, Vadodara and on my return in June, was transferred and posted to Madurai.

During my tenure at Madurai, Balakrishnan from Podanur met me. The two workers had filed a criminal case of defamation against him and the case was being heard by the Tiruppur magistrate. The Legal Department of Railways had refused to fight his case as it was a criminal case against him personally. The Railways might consider reimbursing his expenses if he won the case. The workers had aligned fifteen witnesses on their side. Balakrishnan was in tears and wanted me to appear as a defence witness and I agreed.

On receiving summons from the court, I travelled to Coimbatore. I had arranged to meet our lawyer in the evening as the hearing was for the next morning. I went to the lawyer's house at the appointed time, but he was held up elsewhere and could not meet me till late night. He suggested that we discuss the case the next morning when driving to Tiruppur. I was picked up in the morning by him along with Balakrishnan. By the time we reached the road to Tiruppur, the car had a breakdown and we were stranded.  Just then, the plaintiff's lawyer was passing with his clients in a cab. He was a friend of our lawyer and offered us all a lift. With the plaintiffs traveling with us, all chances of briefing were lost!

We reached the court and the case was taken up. I was called to the witness stand and was examined by the lawyer. The questions were cursory and there was very little I could bring out. Then the cross examination started. The plaintiff's lawyer tried to browbeat me with insinuations that it was all made up by us to defame his clients. One of the points he tried to stress was that there was undue delay in issuing charge sheets. That meant it was an afterthought. I intervened to give the reason but he cut me short and did not allow me to elaborate. I had tried to give leading answers a number of times as a signal to our lawyer and was cut short by the plantiff's lawyer. Our lawyer was quick to grasp the points and on re-cross, asked me the relevant questions. I had ready answers. I was on the witness stand for nearly two and a half hours.  At the end the magistrate congratulated me for the way I conducted myself.

In his judgment in our favour, the magistrate devoted over two pages to my evidence. In short, he had written that it was a treat for him to watch me on the witness stand. He had found my disposition straightforward and to the point. I was the only witness on the defence side, while the opponents had fifteen witnesses lined up.

Balakrishnan at last had his stand vindicated. His expenses for defence were reimbursed by the Railways with my help. The workers were also punished later on my return to Podanur on transfer again in 1970 as part of an expansion plan.