SRIDHAR DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and, therefore, he has come up in the instant second appeal to this Court. The facts of the case will appear from the following passages which have been extracted from the judgment of the lower appellate court.

(2.) The plaintiff's case briefly stated in the plaint is as follows: The plaintiff was appointed substantively to the permanent post of Sainik in the Special Intelligence Branch. Northern Railway, by the Chief Security Officer Sri S. N. Agha, Northern Railway, New Delhi in December, 1956 and he joined his duty on 8-1-1957 and the plaintiff was confirmed on the above post after completing two years of probation period. The plaintiff was transferred to Allahabad in the same branch in the year 1959 and he had been serving in the intelligence force to the satisfaction of the superior authorities. On 15-6-1962 at about 16 hours, the plaintiff from the ceremonial platform to the Railway Station, Allahabad saw a number of ladies passing with Coal bundles on their head and the Railway Protection Force Sainik Sri Jageshwar Singh passing them. The plaintiff immediately rushed to the place and asked the ladies to accompany him to the Railway Station and in the meantime the Railway Protection Force Sainik Sri Jageshwar Singh requested the plaintiff to leave the ladies which he totally refused to do. The Sainik named above having no other alternative refers (sic) the allegations upon the plaintiff in collusion with Rakshak Sri P. D. Misra and Sub-Inspector Railway Protection Force Sri B. K. Mitra and they managed to make a false entry in the General Diary of Railway Protection Force Roznamcha to the effect that the plaintiff was passing coal in connivance with the ladies about which the plaintiff had no knowledge prior to the service of the charge-sheet dated nil July 1962 received on 4-7-1962. A criminal case against the ladies mentioned above was got registered under Section 379 I. P. C. by the Sub-Inspector Railway Protection Force in the presence of the plaintiff in the G. R. P. Allahabad and the plaintiff was one of the recovery witnesses and the Sub-Inspector Railway Protection Force and other Sainik did not mention anything at all against the plaintiff either in the First Information Report or in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. On 4-7-1962, the plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet dated 25-6-1962 by Sri Harmohan Singh, Assistant Security Officer, Intelligence, New Delhi. The plaintiff in his reply dated 11-7-1962 requested the authorities to supply the entire materials on which the charges have been framed. The Assistant Security Officer did not supply the papers on the basis of which the charges were framed.

(3.) The plaintiff sent telegrams dated 2-3-1963 and 12-3-1963 for personal interview and made representations to the Chief Security Officer and Security Officer for personal hearing in his case but the punishing authority did not give the aforesaid facility of the personal hearing and as such they ignored the statutory provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act and the rules framed thereunder.