RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPEATED attempts of the petitioner herein to scale the wall have failed. This writ petition is filed against judgment dated 5. 7. 2006 passed by the Tribunal which was fourth round of litigation. In this fifth attempt, whether the petitioner is able to succeed in getting the relief in which he failed up to now? If we have to begin this judgment with an answer to this question, our answer is emphatic NO. The outcome of the writ petition which we have disclosed at the very outset is followed by the detailed discussion as under: the petitioner was appointed as Telephone Operator under Divisional railway Manager?s Office Northern Railways and at relevant time working at its state Entry Road, New Delhi Office. On 1. 12. 1999 he was arrested for violating the provisions of Section 145 and 180 of the Indian Railways Act. He was produced before Railway Magistrate, New Delhi and was sent to judicial custody. On 15. 12. 1999, when he was produced before the Railway Magistrate again he pleaded guilty to the charge. A fine of Rs. 200/- was imposed upon him and in default it was directed that he would undergo a simple imprisonment of 15 days.

(2.) THE petitioner defaulted in depositing the fine. Since he had already spent 15 days in judicial custody the said period was treated as simple imprisonment already undergone and he was accordingly set free. Sections 145 and 180 under which he was charged read as under: section 145. Drunkenness or nuisance - If any person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway -

(3.) ONE can make out from the above that the allegations against the petitioner were that when he was arrested, he was under the influence of liquor etc. while on duty. He had confessed to this charge by pleading guilty. Subsequently the respondent served a show cause notice dated 31. 8. 2000 under Rule 14 (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)Rules,1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules? for short) stating therein that he was convicted by the Court of Law on an aforesaid criminal charge in which he was imprisoned for 15 days and this conduct of the petitioner which led to the conviction was treated serious which rendered his further retention in public service undesirable. A provisional conclusion was thus made that he was not a fit person to be retained in services and, therefore, show cause notice was given under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules as to why penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice in which his explanation was that on 1. 12. 99 while he was going to duty he met with a minor accident and his colleagues gave him some brandy to provide him a little stimulation to go to his home. He also stated that when he was talking to his colleagues his tongue was little staggering in conversation, as a result of which some of his colleagues issued a memo to railway Protection Force (RPF) staff because of which he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate. The exact words in which he described this incident in his reply to show cause notice are extracted below: a) ?that on 1-12-99 while I was going to duty I met with minor accident and to my misfortune a colleague of mine gave me little brandy to provide me a little stimulation to go to my home. b) That while I talking to my colleagues, in this regard my tongue was little staggering in my conversation, as a result of which some of my colleagues issued a memo to RPF staff and what happened afterwards, is known. Sir, I may submit once again that whatever had happened was neither do not deliberate nor under normal circumstances, but under a different situation which i agree should not have happened. I assure you, sir, that nothing like this shall ever happen in future under any circumstances?.