NATARAJAN Vs. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee working in the Southern Railway -- an Assistant Station Master. He was removed from service by Ext. P5 order on the ground that he contravened R.3 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. An enquiry was conducted against him on the basis of three charges detailed below:

(2.) Though various grounds are urged in the Original Petition for invalidating the order Ext. P-5, the main contention that the petitioner took up was that R.3 of the Railway Services Conduct Rules is not applicable to dealings of the Railway Servant outside his duty hours. As the irregularities alleged to be committed by the petitioner is in respect of his dealings in a purely private capacity it is urged that R.3 could absolutely have no application to such conducts and therefore the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. It is pointed out that this objection of jurisdiction has been raised in the first instance itself by the petitioner. R.3 is also said to confer an unguided and arbitrary power to punish a Railway Servant which might be used to suit the whims and fancies of his superiors. No guiding principles are said to be indicated in the Rule. The said rule is capable of an interpretation that "at all time" mentioned in the rule will include outside duty hours also. The petitioner contends, the rule then would be violative of Art.19(1)(g) and Art.14" of the Constitution. In regard to the enquiry, the petitioner takes up the position that the proceedings Ext. P-1 would reveal the bias of the enquiry officer against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the findings are really based on no evidence at all. In regard to the punishment imposed also the petitioner takes up the stand that it is highly drastic in the circumstances of the case. One of the major penalties provided for under the Rules has been imposed in this case which ordinarily is imposed only in cases of gross negligence of Railway Servants resulting in collision of trains.

(3.) When this came up before one of us sitting single, the question whether R.3 could be attacked as violative of the Constitutional provisions on the ground of vague, arbitrary and unfettered powers being given to the superior officers and also whether the said rule could be made applicable to dealings of Railway Servant outside his duty hours were considered of sufficient importance for reference to a Division Bench. It is in this manner that the matter has come before us.