S SIVAGNANAM Vs. ASST SECURITY OFFICER RAILWAY PROTECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner has asked this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated June 9, 1983 in No. M/xp. 227 /jtj/2/83 of the first respondent, the Assistant Security Officer, Jollarpettai which is confirmed by the respondents 2 and 3 by their orders dated July 4, 1983 and December 7, 1983 and quash the orders of the first respondent and direct the respondent to re-instate the petitioner with all benefits of continuous service.

(2.) THE brief facts, for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition were these; The petitioner was appointed in the Railway Protection Force as a Rakshak by the first respondent on December 27, 1962 and he served as a probationer for six months after which he was confirmed. He had put in 20 years of service.

(3.) HE was removed from service for having consumed alcohol while on duty according to the charge sheet dated January 31, 1983. The petitioner has sworn to an affidavit that the alleged incident took place on December 10, 1982 and on that day he was deputed for a ticket checking duty at the Southern Railway Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Madras, Mr. Perumal and Mr. Gurunathan were two other persons who were assigned the same task. He reported for duty at 8 O'clock in the morning and his supervisor one Mr. Veerannan came to duty around 930 a. m. and the petitioner was assigned the duty of regulating the persons who were charged with travelling ticketless. Around 11-30 a. m. the petitioner's superior sent for him to his office and questioned him about the commotion that was taking place outside. He also abused the petitioner since he suspected that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. So saying he complained to the Deputy Chief Security Officer at Madras Beach through telephone and within. a few minutes the Force came to Egmore and took some statement from his Supervisor and statements of some other persons were recorded and the petitioner was sent to Dr. Santha-nam for examination. He was subjected to various tests after collecting urine and blood samples.