S. SONAI Vs. THE ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case lie within a short compass. The petitioner is a Head Rakshak employed in the Southern Railway Protection force. It is unnecessary for me to traverse in detail the anterior history of the litigation culminating in the present writ petition. Suffice it for my purpose to refer to the order of this court (Srinivasan, J.) dated 3rd September, 1965 which directed further enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner. He was restored back to duty on 5th February 1966. Then, the Railway Administration placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 6th October, 1965 by an order dated 21st February, 1966. On 10th March, 1966 a charge -sheet was served on him. The process of enquiry held against the petitioner covered some period from 27th June, 1966 to 8th July, 1966. Ultimately, the enquiry officer, that is, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice against the petitioner for his removal on 19th July, 1966. The petitioner received the communication of 19th July, 1966 on 25th July, 1966. It is apparent that he was given 14 days notice for giving his explanation against the proposed punishment and against the findings of guilt against the petitioner. But the petitioner wrote a letter on 6th August 1966 to the Assistant Security Officer which was received by him on 7th August 1966. The petitioner in that letter sought for time till 27th August, 1966 for submitting his reply to the show cause notice of penalty. In the meantime, on 10th August, 1966, the Assistant Security Officer wrote to the Chief Security Officer mentioning about the prayer of the petitioner for extension of time for submission of his reply. It is seen from the records that, that communication dated 10th August, 1966 was actually despatched to the Chief Security Officer on 16th August, 1966. On the same day, (16th August, 1966) the disciplinary authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service. That order sent by registered post was received by the petitioner on 6th September, 1966. On 24th August, 1966 the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2131 of 1966 and got a stay of the operation of the order dated 19th July, 1966. The petitioner claimed that he went to the Assistant Security Officer on 2nd September, 1969 and served a copy of the stay order of the High Court. He averred that he was not served with a copy of the final order of removal dated 16th August, 1966. Ultimately, the writ petition No. 2131 of 1966 was dismissed on 20th March, 1969. The petitioner appears to have appealed to the Chief Security Officer. But his appeal was rejected on 25th July, 1969. The point for determination falls within a narrow compass. After noticing that the petitioner has asked for time of two weeks for submitting his explanation, the Assistant Security Officer should not have hastened to pass the order of removal dated 16th August, 1966. I am convinced that the conduct of the Assistant Security Officer is absolutely free from any bias whatever. But he seems to have been oppressed by a feeling that the petitioner was indulging in dilatory tactics and therefore, he did not choose to wait for the expiry of 14 days from 6th August 1966 when the petitioner wrote a letter asking for time for submitting his explanation, and he was in awful hurry to pass the order which he did on 16th August, 1966. The tortuous litigation could have been easily ended by the Assistant Security Officer waiting for a week more and passing the relevant order in question. It must be remembered that this order was received only on 6th September, 1966 by the petitioner. On 30th August, 1966 there is the order of this court staying the operation of the show cause notice dated 19th July, 1966. In other words, on 30th August, 1966 the order of the Assistant Security Officer dated 19th July, 1966 was no longer operative. If the said order was not operative as I hold that it was not, the consequential proceeding of the Assistant Security Officer dated 16th September, 1966 should not become enforceable lawfully. Even on facts lam inclined to think that even without receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the final order of penalty of removal was passed against him. Certainly, it cannot be contended that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity for submitting his explanation against the findings of the disciplinary authority. On this ground, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is allowed. But, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

(2.) It is open to the Assistant Security Officer to recommence the departmental enquiry with the issuance of a valid and proper show cause notice and he is directed to deal with the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.