RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ramesh Kumar has challenged the validity of the order dated 7-2-81 (Annexure 11) dismissing the petitioner from the post of Designation Fireman Gr. C/Varanasi from service with effect from 7-2-81 The aforesaid order had been passed by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Lucknow in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Engine cleaner on 21-6-1972. Subsequently he was promoted as Fireman Grade C with effect from 7th May, 1977. The petitioner was reported to have participated in an illegal strike in Jan. 1981. Consequent upon the report to that effect being made, the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Lucknow dismissed the petitioner from service holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in the aforesaid Rules. He found that the petitioner was not entitled to be given any opportunity of hearing. Against the order of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer dated 7-2-81, the petitioner preferred an appeal, the appeal met with the same fate.

(3.) The argument made before us by the learned counsel was that the petitioner had since not been given an opportunity before the order under rule 14 (ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 had been passed by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, the impugned order was invalid. The learned counsels contention was that although Rule 14 (i) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was ultra vires of the Constitution but assuming it to be valid, the Assistant Mechanical Engineer was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry in the petitioners matter. Sri Lal Ji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Railway contended to the contrary that the question as to whether it is reasonable to hold an enquiry or not is dependent on the satisfaction of the punishing authority and that the Court has no power to intervene in such a matter.