BANSI DHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question that this petition raises is as to the interpretation of Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the Rules) and in particular whether the Rule confers on the various authorities the power of successive review.

(2.) The petitioner who, at the material time was a Senior Booking Clerk in the Northern Railway at Moradabad was charged with misconduct. After a departmental enquiry the punishing authority, however, exonerated the petitioner of the charge by an order made on March I, 1973 and the case was treated as closed. The exoneration was upheld by the next higher authority, the Divisional Superintendent, Moradabad on a motion for review of the decision of the punishing authority under Rule 25 of the Rules. That in course of time the petitioner was promoted as Senior Parcel Clerk. Subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner the petitioner got involved in certain controversies with the Railway Administration with regard to his transfer and eventual cancellation of his promotion as a sequel to which the petitioner filed a suit in October, 1974. Subsequent to the filing of the suit the petitioner was also suspended, an action which was also challanged in separate proceedings in a court of law. Meanwhile, it appears that on a consideration of the record of service of the petitioner the Railway Board observed that there was "adequate positive evidence to hold the charge as proved" and expressed the view that before the case was considered for review "at the next higher level" under the rules his case "should be reviewed under Rule 2046-R-II of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, if due, as it is observed that Shri Dhar bears a tarnished record of the service". By its Communication of October 25, 1975 the Board, therefore, directed the General Manager (Vig.), Northern Railways that "action on the lines suggested above may please be taken and result thereof advised to the Board". It appears that time for review of the case of the petitioner under 2046-R-II of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, was not yet ripe. The General Manager, Northern Railway, however, initiated proceedings under Rule 25 of the Rules to review the order of exoneration and informed the petitioner by his communication of January 20, 1976, after a lapse of almost three years of the order of exoneration, that "in terms of Rule 25 of the Railway servents (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 the undersigned has reviewed the case and does not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer". The petitioner was further informed that for the reasons stated in the Memorandum attached to the communication the General Manager felt that charge against the petitioner was proved. The petitioner was further informed that the General Manager had provisionally come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and purported to impose on him the penalty of removel from service. The petitioner was accordingly required to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner made a representation by a communication of February 11, 1975. By an order of April, 28. 1976, the General Manager held the petitioner to 'be guilty of the charge and removed him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner challanges both the order of review and the order of removal from service.

(3.) The impugned orders are assailed principay on the ground that the Rule did not envisage successive review by the various authorities and once the power of review had been exercised by the Divisional Superintendent and the order of exoneration had been upheld, the power of review stood exhausted and there could be no further review by any authority next higher to the authority which had confirmed the order.