Station master's phone call with ex-wife led to Rs 3 crore loss to railways, know how

A seemingly innocuous OK during a heated phone argument has led to a dramatic series of events involving the Indian Railways. The incident resulted in a staggering Rs 3 crore loss, the suspension of a station master, and a tumultuous 12-year divorce battle that reached the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The incident unfolded when a station master from Visakhapatnam ended an angry call with his wife while on duty. Unbeknownst to him, his microphone was still active, and his colleague misinterpreted his casual "OK" as authorization to dispatch a freight train into a Maoist-affected area. Fortunately, no accident occurred, but the breach of protocol triggered significant financial repercussions for the railways and led to the station master's suspension.

The couple's marriage had been fraught with tension from the start. Married in October 2011, the wife struggled with unresolved feelings from a previous relationship, which contributed to ongoing conflicts. Despite attempts at reconciliation through her parents, communication with her former partner persisted, further straining their union. Following the incident at work, the station master filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. In retaliation, his wife accused him and several family members of cruelty under IPC section 498A.

The case escalated through various courts, ultimately reaching the Chhattisgarh High Court. In a recent ruling, Justices Rajani Dubey and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal found that the wife's actions constituted mental cruelty. The court dismissed her allegations against her husband and in-laws as baseless and unsubstantiated. The judges noted that her persistent arguments and false accusations had inflicted significant emotional distress on the station master.

The High Court's decision not only granted the station master a divorce but also highlighted the severe consequences of miscommunication in high-stakes environments like railway operations. This unusual case serves as a cautionary tale about the potential ramifications of personal disputes spilling over into professional realms, underscoring the need for clear communication protocols in critical situations.