DEVI PARSHAD MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On April 30, 1955 Shri C. L. Chadha, Senior Accounts Officer. Foreign Traffic Accounts, Western Railway, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, imposed the penalty of withholding of increments for two years with cumulative effect on Shri Devi Prashad Mathur, a railway employee. Shri Mathur, who is a clerk grade I, in the office of the Senior Accounts Officer, filed an appeal to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Traffic, Accounts. Western Railway, Ajmer. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on July 5, 1965. The order dismissing the appeal was conveyed to the petitioner on July 8, 1965 and was referred to by him in the writ petition as the order dated the 8th July 1965. On November 8, 1965 the present petition was filed with a prayer that an appropriate writ, order or direction bs issued quashing the orders dated the 30th April and the 8th July 1965. It was alleged in the petition that the actioiin imposing the penalty upon the petitioner was arbitrary, vindictive, against principles of natural justice, equity, good conscience and fair-play and was illegal, malafide and perverse.

(2.) Shri A. P. Chopra, Senior Accounts Officer (W), Ajmer, had been deputed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, to look after the work of the Senior Accounts Officer, Foreign Traffic Accounts, Western Railway, Krishan Ginj, Delhi, from the 4th to the 7th January 1965. During those days Chopra made some entries in the 'service sheets of some members of the staff who had absented themselves from their seats without prior permission of their supervising Officers, On January 8, 1965 he made a report suggesting action to be taken against Rinjit Singh Gupta, Lokendar Singh Shami and the persons named in the statements of Rattan Singh, T. N Handa, S.D. Pande.S. K. Bhatia and Kidar Nath. The statements of the said officials were attached to his report.

(3.) According to the report made by Shri Chopra a request was made to him at about 4 P.M. on January 7, 1965 by S. L, Mathur, Dina Nath, V. T. Rama Chindra and S. L. Saini for cancelling the entries that had been made by him in service sheets. He did not agree to that but told the above-named officials, who had met him, that the conduct of the persons concerned would be watched by the Senior Accounts Officer in whose place he was working and if it was found that they did not again absent themselves then the remarks made by him would be suitably amended. It was further mentioned that the same day at about 5. 10, P. M. about 80 to 90 persons gathered in front of his room and started shouting slogans and also demanded immediate cancellation of the entries made in service sheets. The report farther stated that even his telling the persons who had collected that their behaviour amounted to gross indiscipline had no effect and when he wanted to leave the office in a scooter-rickshaw, the rickshaw was as well not allowed to move with the result that he could only leave office with the help of the Police-flying squad.