AMARSING RATANSING Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant original petitioner in connection with a charge levelled against him to the effect that he had remained absent from duty for about a month without obtaining leave. The charge sheet was served on him on 28/05/1977 By AN order dated 3/02/1978 the disciplinary authority exonerated him from the charge. On 29/06/1978 that is to say about sixteen months after he was exonerated the Security Officer exercised suo motu revisional powers under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1959 and issued a show cause notice calling upon the original petitioner to show cause as to why the order exonerating him should not be set aside and an order imposing penalty of dismissal from service should not be passed against him. The original petitioner rendered his explanation in response to the show cause notice. After taking into account the explanation so offered by him the Security officer passed an order on 19/09/1978 reducing him by two stages in the payscale. After about nine months thereafter on 29/06/1979 another show cause notice under Rule 60 was issued. This time it was issued by the Deputy Chief Security officer. By this notice the original petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the punishment imposed on him (reduction by two stages in the payscale as per the order passed in exercise of revisional powers by the Security Officer on 19/09/1978 should not be varied and why he should not be dismissed from service. On 12/08/1979 the original petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the show cause notice. Thereafter on 22/09/1979 the Deputy Chief Security Officer of the Western Railway passed the impugned order removing him from service with immediate effect. Thereupon the petitioner instituted a civil suit. As the Civil Court vacated the interim order the original petitioner perferred an appeal to the District Court. The District Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court vacating the interim order. Thereupon the appellant approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 3694 of 1981 which has given rise to the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) In the petition instituted by the appellant Special Civil Application No. 3694 of 1981 the petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court vacating the interim stay invoking powers of the High Court under Article 227. He also challenged the order passed by the Security Officer imposing the penalty of reduction by two stages in the payscale and also prayed for the relief that the order which had been passed by the Deputy Chief Security Officer in exercise of revisional powers on 22/11/1979 was without jurisdiction and it should not be given effect to. Thereby the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus it was a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 226 he challenged the legality and validity of the order of penalty imposed by the Security Officer in exercise of revisional powers by reducing him by two stages. He also challenged the validity of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Chief Security Officer on 22/11/1979 in the course of the exercise of revisional powers for the second time by the said Official whereby he was removed from service. It may be stated that according to the petitioner though the order had been passed it had not been served upon him and he therefore also claimed a relief directing the Officer concerned not to serve the order on him and/or not to give effect to the said order. Thus he invoked powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned Single Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing on 3/03/1981 at the admission stage rejected it summarily by a speaking order. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was no occasion for exercise of powers under Article 227 against the order passed by the Civil Court vacating the interim order as confirmed by the Appellate Court. In regard to the petition to the extent that it was rooted in Article 226 of the Constitution of India in so far as a challenge was made to the order of removal from service passed in exercise of revisional powers for the second time on 22/11/1979 as per the order passed by the Deputy Chief Security Officer the learned Judge refused to interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 having regard to the fact that the petitioner had already availed of an alternative remedy by filing a civil suit. Whilst refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground that alternative remedy had been already availed of in paragraph 3 of the order the learned Single Judge made observations to the effect that it was possible to take the view that revisional powers could be exercised for the second time even against an order passed by the revisional authority on an earlier occasion though the learned Single Judge made it clear that he was not expressing any final opinion on the question. It is against this order summarily dismissing the petition of the appellant at the admission stage that the present appeal is directed.