UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) The first respondent Sri Kundan Lal was an employee of the petitioner in the Central Railway. In 1953 he was working as the goods clerk in ward at Belanganj, Agra. On the 2nd June 1953 the 1st respondent received two bags of money containing a total sum of Rs. 4098/12/- and this amount was to be put in the iron safe. According to the 1st respondent, he put the money in the safe at about 7-30 p. m. and he locked the safe after putting the money in it. The next morning, however, at 8-30 he found that the lock of the iron safe was already open and the cash was missing. Enquiries immediately started and on the 11th June 1953 the 1st respondent was put under suspension pending an officers' enquiry. The enquiry was held and it appears that the report of the enquiry committee was that the 1st respondent was negligent in the discharge of his duties. On the 10th July 1953 a chargesheet was framed against the 1st respondent, which charged him with neglect of duty on his part, which had resulted in the loss to the Railway Administration. The neglect of duty was alleged to be that he failed to lock the safe after putting the cash in it.

(3.) In paragraph 11 of the affidavit, filed along with the petition, it is stated that the 1st respondent applied for permission to see the record of the proceedings before the enquiry committee and permission was granted to him to inspect the record. He also asked for three days' leave to prepare his reply, and the same was also granted to the 1st respondent. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, the 1st respondent has only averred that the contents of paragraph 11 of the affidavit, filed along with the petition, were irrelevant. On the 16th July 1953 the 1st respondent filed his explanation. On the 21st August 1953 the Area Superintendent of Agra served the 1st respondent with a notice intimating to him that his reply was unsatisfactory and that he had failed to explain the charge. He stated that penalty of removal from service was proposed to be inflicted upon him and he (1st respondent) was required to show cause within seven days why the said penalty be not inflicted. The 1st respondent then submitted his explanation to this notice on the 26th August 1953. He wanted to be heard in person and was examined at some length by the Officer on the 2nd September 1953. The very next day an order was passed setting aside the suspension of the 1st respondent and he was permitted to resume his duties. It appears that, while making his statement before the Officer, the 1st respondent had made a very qualified sort of statement saying that, if the Officer after taking into consideration his explanation and other things still considered that the penalty of debiting the 1st respondent with the amount of loss was justified, the 1st respondent would he willing to accept the punishment in order to save him from punishment of removal from service.