ARJUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARJUN Chaubey, the petitioner, has challenged the order dated 15th June, 1982, of the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent (C). N. Railway, Varanasi, terminating him from the post of senior clerk working in the O.C.S's office Varanasi. The termination order was passed under Rule 14(ii) if the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The relevant portion of the termination order is as under:

(2.) CHALLENGING the dismissal order, the petitioner has raised three arguments. The first is that the reason recorded for dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules, should be communicated to the employees concerned. According to the learned counsel, reasons are required to be communicated before the order terminating the service is made by the appointing authority. In the alternative, the submission made in this regard was that if the communication of reasons is not held to be necessary before the actual passing of the dismissal order, the same must accompany the order terminating or dismissing the employee. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner way that under Rule 14, not only the giving of reasons for dispensing with the enquiry is a condition precedent but also its communication separately to him within a reasonable time. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon K.A. Subramaniam v. Union of India and others, 1982 L.I.C. 1059 P.K. Chowdhary and others v. Union of India, 1977 L.I.C. 450 Ram Khilari v. Union of India A.I. Raj. : 1976 R. 219 and Bhola Nath v. Union of India, 1975 S.L.R. 277 Guj.

(3.) WE have quoted above the order by which the petitioner had been dismissed. This order was passed both under Rule 14(ii) and Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. Before making the order dismissing the petitioner, the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent recorded his satisfaction in writing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry contemplated by Rule 18 to 13. The reasons recorded by him are being reproduced below: