The station master’s call to his ex-wife led to a loss of Rs 3 crore for the railways

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

The incident occurred when a station master from Visakhapatnam ended an angry phone call to his wife while he was on duty. Unbeknownst to him, his microphone was still active, and his colleague misinterpreted his casual “OK” as permission to send a freight train into a Maoist-affected area. Fortunately, no accident occurred, but the breach of protocol had significant financial consequences for the railways and led to the suspension of the station master.

The couple’s marriage had been fraught with tension from the start. The woman married in October 2011 and struggled with unresolved feelings from a previous relationship, contributing to ongoing conflict. Despite attempts at reconciliation through her parents, communication with her former partner continued, further straining their union. After 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 several courts and eventually reached the Chhattisgarh High Court. In a recent ruling, Justices Rajani Dubey and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ruled that the woman’s actions constituted mental cruelty. The court dismissed her allegations against her husband and in-laws as baseless and baseless. The judges noted that her persistent arguments and false accusations had caused the station master significant emotional distress.

The Supreme Court decision not only granted the station master a divorce, but also highlighted the serious consequences of miscommunication in high-stakes environments such as railway operations. This unusual case serves as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of personal disputes spilling over into the professional world, and underlines the need for clear communication protocols in critical situations.