KUNDAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi allowing a petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The facts which led to the petition appear to be these. The appellant Sri Kundan Lal was an employee of the Central Railway and was working in the year 1953 as goods clerk (inward) at Belanganj, Agra. On the 2nd of June 1953 he received two bags of money containing a sum of Rs. 4098/-12/- which he was expected to keep locked in an iron safe. He himself claimed that he had put the money in the safe at 7.30 P. M. and had locked the safe. It was however found the next morning that the lock of the safe was open and the amount was missing. The appellant was thereupon put under suspension pending an enquiry. On the 10th of July 1953 a charge-sheet was framed against him in which he was charged with negligence of duty on his Part inasmuch as he had failed to lock the safe after putting the cash in it. The appellant submitted his explanation. The Superintendent of the Agra Area who was holding the enquiry under the provisions of the Railway Establishment Code to which the appellant was subject, found the appellant's explanation to be unsatisfactory and served a notice upon him requiring him to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should not be inflicted upon him. The appellant showed cause and was even heard in person. During his statement the appellant in a way expressed his willingness to pay the amount in question in order to be saved from the punishment of removal of service. The proposal of removing him from service was thereupon dropped and he was permitted to resume his post. He was, however, required to show cause why the penalty of recovering the sum of Rs. 4098/12/- at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month from his salary should not be imposed upon him. He again showed cause but his explanation was not found to be acceptable and the proposed Penalty was imposed upon him by the Superintendent Agra Area. An appeal was Preferred against that order by the appellant but was rejected. He approached the Chief Commercial Superintendent for redress but without success. He then applied for relief under the Payment of Wages Act to the City Magistrate of Agra who had been appointed under Section 15 of the Act as an Authority to hear and decide all claims and disputes arising out of deductions from the wages of Persons employed in his district. The appellant contended before the authority that the Superintendent Agra Area was wrong in his finding that the amount in question had been lost on account of any negligence of the appellant and that there was no justification for deducting anything from his wages on that account. The application was opposed mainly on the ground that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the appellant had caused any loss to the railway on account of his negligence. It was urged that the orders of the Enquiring Officer under the Railway Establishment Code had become final on the point. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act over-ruled the objection, considered the matter and reached the conclusion that the negligence of the appellant was not established and that the deductions that were being made from his salary were unauthorised, illegal and unjust. He, therefore, allowed the appellant's application and directed that the deductions be restored. Aggrieved by that order the Union of India, who is now respondent No. 1, filed the writ petition cut of which this appeal has arisen and prayed that the order of the City Magistrate be quashed by a writ of certiorari. The main ground urged in support of the petition was that the deductions which were being made from the appellant's salary were justified under Clauses (c) and (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act and the authority under the Act had wrongly held them to be unjustified. It was contended that in any case he had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the appellant's negligence had been established or not.

(3.) The petition was contested on merits as well as on the ground that as the Petitioner had an alternative remedy of appealing against the impugned order but had not pursued that remedy it was not entitled to seek the aid of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.