UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION of India has come up in Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6-3-1976 passed in Civil Appeal No. 268 of 1974, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, Ramesh Chander Gupta, an employee of Northern Railway, declaring the order of termination dated 7-5-1970 passed by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Moradabad, as illegal, inoperative, null and void, granting continuity of service to him, leaving open for recourse under Rule 4 (3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1968, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent was working as a Fuel Issuer in the Northern Railway at Moradabad against whom disciplinary proceedings were set in motion by serving on him an article of charges dated 16-6-1968. THE enquiry authority without following the procedure as contained in sub-rule (11) of Rule 9 conducted the enquiry and submitted the report to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Moradabad, who vide his order dated 7-5-1970 removed him from the service and the appeal there against was summarily dismissed.

(3.) TO what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? 5. The Trial Court recorded a finding about the commission of procedural irregularities by examining the defence witnesses first, whose statements were recorded between 10-9-1968 to 17-11-1968 and the statement of the witnesses in support of the charge were examined subsequent thereto on 9-12- 1968 and thereafter. The suit was dismissed on 23-7-1974 on the ground of non-estableshment of prejudice caused to the plaintiff owing to non-observance of the established procedure. Against this order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal,. which was allowed on 6-3-1976, decreeing the suit The principal point which was raised by the plaintiff before the lower appellate Court was that the examination of six defence witnesses as well as himself before taking the evidence in support of the charge, vitiated the entire proceedings and they were in violation of sub-rule (11) of Rule 9 of the Rules and the principle of natural justice The counsel for the Union of India resisted the submission on the plea that the irregularities in procedure committed by the enquiry authority has not caused any prejudice to him. The lower appellate Court held that sub-rule (11) of Rule 9 of the Rules is mandatory and the compliance whereof must be made without exception. The non-compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiated the proceedings irrespective of the fact whether the employee concerned is put to establish any prejudice or not.