LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-39

SURYA BALIRAM TEWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 17, 1997
SURYA BALIRAM TEWARI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of IV Additional District Judge, Deoria on 22-8-1983 in Original Suit No. 78 of 1979, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for decla ration to the effect that removal/dismissal order, dated 25-9-1975 passed by Railway Board is illegal and the is still continuing in the service of the defendant as Assistant Medical Officer.

(2.) PLAINTIFF was appointed, on 25-5-1958 as Assistant Surgeon, Grade I in North Eastern Railway and was promoted to the post of Assistant Medical Officer Class II on 7-9-1971. Charge sheet was served on him by the General Manager, North Eastern Rail way, Gorakhpur followed by disciplinary proceeding on the charge that he absented himself without leave from duty from 29-10-1967 to 31-1-1971. Another charge was also framed against him to the effect that the plaintiff resorted to private practice at Deoria in between January 1968 to 31-1-1971 in contravention of the Rules. Sri A. K. Ray, Commissioner for Departmental En quiry was appointed as Inquiring Officer by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway. He enquired into the matter and on the basis of his report the plaintiff was removed from services by the Railway Board by its order dated 25-9-1975 with effect from 12-11-1975 when the said order was served on him.

(3.) SRI H. S. N. Tripathi, appearing for the appellant has challenged the entire proceeding including the order of removal by stating, inter alia, that no copy of the document relied on by the railway authority was given during Inquiries and that the pro cedure followed in submitting the report by Inquiring Officer directly to the Railway Board through Central Vigilance Commis sion, who recommended for major punish ment, the decision taken by one member of the Board without concurrence of the Rail way Board and that no opportunity of hear ing before the Railway Board was given to the appellant.