RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed under Art 226 of the Constitution of India by a Diesel Assistant in the Southern Railway, Palghat, who has been removed from service as per Ext. P2 order passed by the second respondent. A section of the locomen were on strike between 26-1-1981 and 26-2-1981. Petitioner was one of those who actively participated in the strike while one Balakrishnan was one of those who did not participate in the strike. On 26-2-1981 Balakrishnan lodged a complaint with the authorities to the effect that day the petitioner put a garland of slippers around Balakrishnan's neck and abused him in vulgar language. A Memo of charge with the necessary particulars and documents was served on the petitioner the next day in regard to the incident on the basis that he has violated R.3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servants' Conduct Rules. The charge was denied by the petitioner as seen from Ext. R 3 Third respondent, duly constituted enquiry authority, conducted the enquiry and submitted Ext. P1 report holding that the charge has been proved. Second respondent, the disciplinary authority accepted the finding in the report and imposed on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service under Ext. R3. It is this order, which is challenged in the present original petition.

(2.) The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Palghat, who imposed the punishment is not competent to do so. An identical contention raised by another railway servant has been rejected by this court in O. P. No. 3049 of 1982. In that original petition this court held that the second respondent is competent to impose the maximum punishment on members of Class III staff to which the present petitioner also belongs. This contention is, therefore, overruled.

(3.) Along with the memo of charges, a list of witnesses had been served on the petitioner. The list contains only names of four persons. Besides these four witnesses, two more witnesses, Chellappan and Nallappan, who did not figure in the list of witnesses served on the petitioner, were also examined by the presenting officer. This is challenged as being violative of the provisions of the Railway Servants' Discipline and Appeal Rules. 1968 (for short the 'Rules').