I wonder how this system works? I say that because in the very first post, the OP told us;
Has it really taken 'a couple of years' to inform / alert / warn the OP that something was amiss? If so there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. At the very least, I would have thought that RDG would have put a process in place to investigate at the earliest possible stage and withdraw the pass if they were unhappy. Of course, some of these discussions / investigations might have taken place - we don't know - and if so and the OP was warned, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But he says that he was unaware, so we have to accept that.
I still feel uncomfortable about the process and outcome. Irrespective of the obligation on the OP, I cannot see that someone is now accountable for the actions of a spouse. That, I feel falls foul of our equality laws in the UK. The system for issuing spousal / partner / family passes might not have kept place with our social changes. If the railways needs an assurance that the passes are being used correctly they should have a process that obtains that assurance from the spouse.
It would pay the OP to have this tested (perhaps on a no win, no fee basis) at an Employment Court. He still has that avenue available to him.
Good luck finding a no win, no fee arrangement for employment matters! Most claims are unrepresented for a reason!
I see no issue with the data analysis / collection perspective. As I've advised before in other areas, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to lull people into a false sense of security, and build up a picture over time, which strengthens the case for proving fraud (or gross misconduct etc). At the end of the day, the spouse was clearly in severe breach of the conditions of use. I actually find it reassuring in some ways that "normal" passengers and holders of this sort of pass are treated in a similar manner when it comes to enforcement.
I predicted that this case could only ever result in dismissal quite correctly. The TOC had clearly formed the view that the employee was responsible for the actions of the spouse/partner, and as the fraud/irregular use was an obvious fact, the TOC was always going to dismiss.
The issue is not that a fraud occurred, but that the TOC had a potential fundamental misunderstanding of liability.
Considering the concept of vicarious liability in a traditional sense within employment, if an employer can show that they took steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from doing the discriminatory act, the employer cannot be held responsible for the actions of their employee(s).
It follows, logically, that similar principles and conclusions could apply in this case, (although vicarious liability doesn't strictly apply). An Employment Tribunal, in my view, would award compensation or reinstatement (rarely) if the employee meets all of the below:
1) Has a good track record in his job, with no previous disciplinary issues;
2) Demonstrates that on the balance of probability that they conveyed the conditions of use to their spouse, and the consequences of misuse, and occasionally took action to ensure some level of compliance. Possibly supported by a witness statement from the spouse. If the employee did not do this, the case is doomed.
3) Has no travel pass misuse themselves.
The ET is likely to be somewhat dubious, however, so I don't rate the chances unless there is good evidence showing everything realistically possible to control the use of the pass was done.
It has some parallels to car insurance offences. You give your wife the keys to your car and let her drive. She is then stopped and found to be uninsured. She is prosecuted.
However, the police can (and would) also prosecute you for "permitting" the use of the car whilst she was uninsured. You are liable for ensuring (and largely evidencing) that you met your obligation to take reasonable steps so as to verify insurance was held prior to handing over the keys.
There may well be a case for a civil claim against the spouse/partner.