BHAGWAN DAS Vs. NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal by Bhagwan Das is directed against the Judgment of B. N. Nigam, J. , dated 23 March 1966, dismissing Writ Petition No. 379 of 1964, filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant was in the service of the Union of India in the capacity of storekeeper in the Northern Railway. He was posted at Lucknow in the year 1951. A shortage of white metal in his charge was discovered in that year. He was departmentally chargesheeted on 9 June, 1951, but, before the departmental enquiry could proceed any far, a criminal prosecution was launched against him the Court of Sessions. On 29 October 1954 he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Lucknow. On 6 April 1955 the appellant received a show case notice issued by the works manager, Workshops, Alambagh Northern Railway, Lucknow, in connexion with the departmental proceedings that were going on against him. He submitted an explanation, but the name was rejected by means of an order dated 30 May 1955. In this order it was stated inter alia that the explanation not accepted, your next increment falling due on 23 June 1953 is withheld for due yea. This will have effect on your subsequent further increment. The effect of the aforesaid order was that the appellant did not get an increment on 23 June 1956 which would have been due to him had not the order aforesaid been passed. The period of one year expired on 22 June 1957 end on that date the bar against the payment of increment to the appellant was automatically removed, and the appellant became entitled to get the increment. Nothing was done by the railway authorities up to 23 July 1957. However, the appellant received an order dated 24 July 1957 issued by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer calling upon him (the appellant ). to show canoe in writing why the enhanced penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon you. It is admitted by Sri Nigam, the learned Counsel for the railway, that this order was passed under the provision of Rule 99 of the Northern Railway Discipline and Appeal Rules for Non-gazetted Railway Servants. The appellant submitted his explanation on 27 August 1957 (annexure 9 ). An order dated 21 January 1958 was served upon the appellant. This order related to appellant's reply dated 27 August 1957 in reply to notice of proposal to enhance the penalty already imposed in order No. 14acu/39 of 24 July 1957 issued by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (W), New Delhi. The appellant was informed by means of the above order that an enquiry consisting of the Assistant Works Manager and the Assistant Personnel Officer will be held in connexion with the above at 9:30 bonus on 30 January 1958 in this office. and he was called upon to state if he wanted to be assisted, by any defence counsel. The appellant submitted a representation against the letter aforesaid on 27/28 January 1958. In September 1959 the appellant received an order dated 9 September 1959 requesting him "to nominate a panel of three persons in order of priority to act as your defence counsel. " It appears that the petitioner objected to the proposed enquiry and submitted an application to that effect on 30 October 1959. By means of the order dated 16/18 December 1959 the appellant was finally told that the enquiry in the above case will be held to the A. W. M. (P)'s office on 28 December 1959 in which you are requested to attend.

(3.) IN November 1960 the appellant received an order addressed to himself and dated 10 November 1960. This order reads: With reference to your application dated 23 December 1959 this is to inform you that a fresh enquiry was ordered by the headquarters office (italicized by us) on the examination of your case, wherein they had discovered that the enquiry held previously did not record your statement nor you were subject to any cross-examination to establish the charges brought against you or otherwise. This has therefore been taken as if you were not given a reasonable opportunity to establish your innocence. Under these circumstances, you are, therefore, advised to comply with the request made in this office letter No. CON/spl/mdc, dated 16/18 December 1959, by giving a panel of three persons in order of priority to act as your defence counsel. You are also hereby warned that in case you do not participate in the enquiry that will be fixed on hearing from you, the administration will proceed with the case on the information available. Kindly acknowledge and reply given so as to reach the undersigned by 14 November 1960 at the latest. This fresh enquiry was held on several dates. On 16 March 1962 the appellant appeared before the enquiry committee. The order-sheet of that date as maintained by the enquiry officer reads: Bhagwan Das, timekeeper, appeared before the enquiry committee on date along with his defence counsel Sri U. N. Kapur and the above charges were again read out to him. Bhagwan Das in reply stated as below: