R K MISRA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India by six former railway employees raise a common question as to the validity of the orders of their removal from service for alleged incitement to and participation in an illegal strike without affording them any opportunity of being heard under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules", on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner laid down in the Rules.

(2.) The petitioners had been in the service of the Northern Railway for different periods ranging from 17 to 30 years. Some of the petitioners had been active trade union workers and held offices in the Local, Regional or National Union of Railway men. In April 1974, a representative body of Indian Railwaymen gave a notice to the Railway Administration of the intention of the railwaymen to go on a nationwide strike from May 8, 1974 in support of their demands for better conditions of service. Pursuant to the notice some parleys ware held between the administration on the one hand and he representatives of the railwaymen on the other to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the disputes so as to avert the strike and the consequential dislocation of the system of railways. The negotiations, however, appear to have proved abortive, and either as a preventive measure or as a sequel to the strike, a large number of leaders of railwaymen, active trade union workers among the railway employees and other railway employees were arrested on or about May 1, 1974 and on the days following that, inter alia, on charges of incitement to an illegal strike, and alleged acts of violence and intimidation of willing workers. The strike was withdrawn on May 28, 1974. On May 29, 1974, the arrested leaders and the railway employees were released. The prosecutions filed against the striking employees were either withdrawn or were dismissed on technical grounds. During the period of the strike, a large number of railway employees were dismissed from service for misconduct constituted by their ,allegcd incitement to an illegal strike, intimidation of willing workers and participation in such a strike. The employees were, however, not given any opportunity of being heard before the orders were made by virtue of the provisions of Rule 14(ii) of the Rules on the ground that it was not "reasonably practicable" to hold a,n inquiry in the manner provided by the Rules. The six petitioners were among the employees who were dealt with in that manner. The impugned orders were upheld in appeals.

(3.) The first question that falls for consideration is whether the orders of the Disciplinary Authority in all these cases to the effect that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry could be said to be valid in law.