ANSARI M F Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of eight writ petitions filed by ex-Railway servants questioning the legality of the orders by which penalty of dismissal from service was imposed against them, after dispensing with the enquiry, in exercise of the powers under R. 14 (ii) of the Railwav Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules,) read with clause (b) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Coustitution, the following important questions of law arise for consideration :

(2.) The facts of the case, which have given rise to these petitions, may briefly be summarised as follows ; The petitioners were all civil servants on the establishment of the Railways of the Central Government. They were all members of a registered trade union called 'All India Loco Running Staff Association'. On account of certain demands of the union regarding conditions of service of the Railway employees, having not been acceded to by the Railway Department, the Union resorted to a strike in January 1981. The allegations against the petitioners were that they were indulging in acts of indiscipline and intimidation of other workers, who were desirous of not participating in the strike and attending to the duties. Acting on the basis of the report made by the concerned Controlling Officer, the discipinary authority, having taken the view that the acts alleged against the petitioners were misconduct, which justified the imposition of penaltv of dismissal from service against them and also being of the opinion that it was reasonably impracticable to hold an enquiry against the petitioners, invoked its powers under R. 14 (ii) of the Rules which is the same as the power given under proviso (b) of clause (2) of Art 311 of the Constitution and passed the impugned orders Copies of the orders made against the eight petitioners have been produced as Annexure-A, A-1 to A-7, respectively. The wording of all the orders are similar. Therefore it is sufficient to set out the contents of one such order. The order made against the first petitioner in W.P.No. 33613 of 1981, M.F. Ansari, (Annexure-A dt. 3/5th Feb. 1981) reads :

(3.) Sri M. Raghavendrachar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged the following contentions : (i) No reasons for dispensing with the enquiry having been recorded in the impugned orders, or having been communicated separately along with the orders, subsequent to the passing of the impugned orders, the impugned orders are liable to be struck down as having been made in violation of R. 14 of the Rules, and Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. (ii) Assuming that the dispensing with the enquiry was in accordance with law, it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to have given a limited opportunity to the petitioners against the imposition of penalty and the same not having been done, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. (iii) The orders passed in the cases against the petitioners are all stereotyped which indicate that there was no application of the mind to individual cases and the facts justifying the dispensing with the enquiry and the imposition of penalty against each of the petitioners and, therefore, the impugned orders are arbitrary and capricious and, therefore liable to be set aside.