K DAKSHINAMOORTHY Vs. DISTRICT SIGNAL TELECOMMUNICATION ENGINEER WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, K. Dakshinamoorthy was employed as a Khalasi in the Signal and Telecommunication Shop in the Southern Railway. He was drawing a pay of rs. 72/- at the time when the Railway Authorities dismissed him from the service for serious misconduct by an order passed on 17-12-1964. Before passing the order of dismissal, a charge was framed against the petitioner for the following misconduct:

(2.) HE was kept under suspension pending enquiry. The charge was held proved and he was dismissed by the District Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (Works), Perambur, Madras (the first respondent ). The appeal filed to the higher appellate authority was dismissed and the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorart

(3.) TWO points were urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of the hearing of the Writ Petition, in support of the petitioner's prayer. One is that at the time when the alleged search mentioned in the charge was made by the railway Protection Force Staff at the gate, there was an obligation on the part of the searching personnel to comply with the requirements of Section 13 of the railway Protection Force Act, 1957 as well as Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Railway Protection Force Act on 10-9-1959. The second argument relied upon by the petitioner's learned Counsel is that the requirements of the Conduct and discipline Rules, in particular. Rule 1712, which permits a Railway servant accused of a departmental irregularity to have the help of another Railway servant to defend him had not been complied with in this case and to that extent, the enquiry has been vitiated.