UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. J.A. MUNAFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and thereby quashing an order passed by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, in May 1963 dismissing the Respondent from service.

(2.) THE facts shortly are as follows. The Respondent started his career in the railway as an employee in the Bengal Nagpur Railway in the year 1929 and was confirmed in 1930. In January 1962, he was working as a confirmed Loco Foreman at Shahdol in the scale of pay Rs. 575 -650/ - with effect from March 16, 1961. On January 12, 1962, he was served with a charge sheet over the signature of the District Mechanical Engineer, Bilaspur alleging "Serious misconduct and/or neglect of duty" rendering him liable to dismissal from service in terms of paragraph 1707 of the Railway Establishment Code. In substance the charge was that he had marked certain khalasis working in the Loco Shed as present on duty during a certain period when actually they were prosecuting their studies at a school and were present there. The enquiry was conducted by a Board of Enquiry consisting of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer and the Assistant Personnel Officer. On receipt of the report submitted by the Board of Enquiry the General Manager issued a notice to the Respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. His explanation did not convince the General Manager who passed an order of dismissal on May 8, 1963. The Respondent filed an appeal to the Railway Board which was, however, turned down. He filed his petition under Article 226 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in September, 1965. Therein he took many points including one that the "disciplinary authority" in relation to him was the General Manager and he alone was competent to issue a charge sheet as required by Rule 1709 of the Railway Establishment Code read with Rule 1702 (i) and (ii) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. His complaint was that the charge sheet having been issued by the District Mechanical Engineer who was neither the "appointing authority" nor the "Disciplinary authority" within the meaning of the rules, was illegal and void and no steps taken against him on the basis of such charge sheet could justify any action against him not to speak one of dismissal. In paragraph 10 of his petition, the Respondent had stated inter alia that "the General Manager who is the Disciplinary authority did not afford him any opportunity of hearing."

(3.) THE High Court of Madhya Pradesh did not examine all the grounds sought to be raised by the Respondent in his petition but on the view that the applicant had been appointed as a Loco Foreman by the General Manager concluded that he was also the "Disciplinary Authority" in relation to the Respondent under paragraph 1702 (II) of the Conduct and Discipline Rules. The High Court allowed the application following its decision in Shardul Singh v. State of M. P. : 1967 JLJ 21 : 1966 MPLJ 145 : AIR 1966 MP 193 that "a departmental enquiry initiated by an authority other than the disciplinary authority has no power to frame on its own initiative charges against an employee" and the notice to show cause issued by the disciplinary authority as a result of such enquiry and the order of dismissal passed by it subsequently were null and void.