JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Ticket Collector in Northern Railway on 7-7-1951 after passing the competitive test. He was performing his duties satisfactorily for 20 years. Between 1970 and 1972 number of departmental proceedings were held against him. In the three enquiries the orders were passed withholding his increments for different periods. He was censured in three proceedings. One proceeding was dropped and in one proceeding he was given the benefit of doubt. He was suspended for six months when the first proceeding was held against him in 1970. After the suspension order was revoked it was ordered that the period of suspension will not quality him "for increments, leave and retirement benefits." He was thrice transferred from Delhi during this period but the orders were cancelled after his representation. In 1972 adverse remarks were passed in his confidential report and the remarks were communicated to him. In this petition the petitioner has challenged all these orders. His submission is that they are contrary to the Rules and malafide.

(2.) It maybe noted that .the punishment of withhelding of increments for a specific period and censure are minor penalties as defined by Rule 6 of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968. Two of the proceedings were started in the beginning under Rules 9 and 10. The procedure laid down in Rules 9 and 10 is applicable where the Disciplinary Authority thinks that the charges might necessitate major penalties. Rule 11 lays down the procedure to be followed where minor penalties are to be imposed. Procedure laid down in Rules 9 and 10 is more elaborate and detailed one. Compared to that the procedure laid down in Rule II is more summary in nature. However, under both the procedures a care has been taken to see that the trial is a fair trial and the principles of natural justice are observed. They also incorporate the well established principle applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings, namely, passing of a speaking order regarding the guilt and the punishment imposed. Since, the petitioner has alleged serious illegalities in the actual procedure followed in these proceedings, I may note some salient provisions of Rules 9, 10 and 11.

(3.) No order imposing a major penalty can be passed unless a departmental enquiry is held in the manner laid down by Rules 9 and 10. Under sub-rules 3 and 4 of Rule 9 the Articles of Charge along with statement of imputations of misconduct should be served on the delinquent employee. Within ten days he should file written statement in his defence. He is also to be informed of the documents relied upon by the Department and the list of witnesses. The delinquent has a right to inspect the documents relied upon. He can ask for the supply of copies of the statements of the witnesses which are intended to be relied upon. A detailed enquiry is to be conducted thereafter if the delinquent does not admit the charge. The Disciplinary Authority may itself conduct the enquiry or appoint an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. The delinquent is entitled to the assistance from another Railway servant for conducting his defence. On the date fixed for the enquiry relevant documentary evidence is to be laid by the Department. The delinquent has a right to cross-examine the witnesses. The delinquent is entitled to give a statement orally or in writing after the citing of the deparment's evidence in his defence. After the enquiry is complete the Enquiry Officer should forward the repart with his findings on the evidence to the disciplinary Authority.