THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVT, OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this court, by an order dated July 13, 1971, allowed a writ petition tiled by Shri Mahabir Prasad Srivastava and quashed the order of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, dated July 21, 1969, removing him from service. Aggrieved by this order. Union of India and other officers of Northern Railway have filed this appeal.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a shroff in the Northern Railway in the year 1962 and in due course was confirmed in that post. Subsequently he was promoted to officiate as junior pay clerk and in the year 1967, was posted at Lucknow. On 4. 7. 1967 he was served with a charge sheet signed by the Assistant Chief Cashier and Pay Master/Deputy Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer. It was alleged that in the course of his duties he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 465-70 from the railway funds- In due course, the Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer was appointed to make an enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiring officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him and submitted a report to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer agreed with the findings of the enquiring officer and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service. Accordingly, he issued a memorandum calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. After considering the representation made by the petitioner, the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer passed an order dated July 21, 1969, removing him from service. Shri Mahabir Prasad then filed a petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, before this Court and impugned the order removing him from service on three grounds:-

(3.) So far as the first ground is concerned, the case of the petitioner Is that he was appointed as a shroff by the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer. The order removing h'm from service has been passed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer who is subordinate to the authority which appointed him. The order of removal, therefore, is invalid Case of the Railway Administration on the other hand is that the petitioner has been appointed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer who is fully competent to make an order removing him from service. As neither side produced the appointment order, learned single Judge did not feel satisfied that the petitioner had been removed from service by an authority subordinate to that which appointed him. He, however, found force in the second and the third grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner. He found that the enquiring officer had been appointed by the Chief Cashier and Pay Master, who was not competent to mike the appointment The impugned order was vitiated inasmuch as it was passed on the report of an enquiring officer who had not been validly appointed. He further found that the impugned order was vitiated as there had been non-compliance with the provisions of rule 1713 of the Railway Establishment Code. He, accordingly, allowed the petition and quashed the order removing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by this decision. Union of India and others have filed the present special appeal.