AVINASH CHANDRA SANJAR Vs. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed toy Avinash Chandra Sanjar, a ticket collector employed by the Central Railway, challenging the legality of an order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Jhansi, removing Mm from service on the ground of incivility to a travelling passenger.

(2.) The facts are these. An incident occurred at Mahoba railway station on 28 May 1958 immediately after the arrival of the 523 Down passenger train from Jhansi on its way to Manikpur. The persona involved were Sri M.L. Dwivedi, a Member of Parliament and another person whose identity was never established but who is alleged by the respondent railway to be Avinash Chandra Sanjar himself. According to an eye-witness, who was the ticket collector on duty at the exit gate, passengers started passing through that gate soon after the arrival of the train at Mahoba. A group of five or six passengers went through the gate but had no tickets. The ticket collector checked them but they replied that a man following them had their tickets. The official waited for two or three minutes but nobody came forth with the missing tickets and meanwhile the passengers continued to pass through the gate. The ticket collector began to murmur against the irregularity of this procedure when a gentleman dressed in khadar came from the waiting room and tried to assure him that the persons who had gone out without tickets were his companions and that they were not without tickets. At this stage, an unknown person intervened and made remarks which were resented by Sri Dwivedi, and it appears that there was quite a scene at the railway station. During the resulting confusion, the unknown person disappeared and was never traced afterwards. Sri Dwivedi, however, persisted on pursuing the matter further and complained to the assistant station-master on duty. He wanted his assistance to establish the identity of the person who had offended him and demanded a search of the train on the suspicion that the person had probably hid himself in one of the compartments. A search was accordingly made and Sri Dwivedi pointed to a passenger and asked for his name. That passenger, however, refused to reveal his name and asserted that he had never left his compartment. Meanwhile other passengers who wasted to purchase tickets complained to the assistant station-master that they were being neglected. That official was compelled to return to his office to attend to their needs. The passenger pointed out by Sri Dwivedi apparently took advantage of this interval and disappeared from the compartment. Sri Dwivedi, however, insisted that the man should be traced and even made the surprising demand that the train should be detained and not allowed to leave the station until the man was caught. The other passengers, however, protested that there was no reason why they should suffer inconvenience and be made to miss a connexion. The railway officials regretted their inability to detain the train but advised Sri Dwivedi to make a complaint which he duly wrote down in the complaint book kept at the station.

(3.) The railway authorities took serious notice of Sri Dwivedl's complaint, but their problem was to find the man who had offended him. It is not clear how the suspicion fell on the petitioner Avinash Chandra Sanjar. Learned Counsel for the railway was not able to explain, in spite of repeated questions by this Court, how the railway picked him out as the guilty person, nor have the railway produced any documents to show why, when and how the petitioner became a suspect. This part of the controversy remains enveloped in mystery which has not been cleared up. At any rate, if the railway know why they suspected Avinash Chandra, they have not placed their knowledge at the disposal of this Court.