UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANKESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent filed three suits in the court of Munsif Havali, Varanasi being suits Nos. 225, 226 and 227 of 1966. In the first suit the relief claimed was for a declaration that the order dated 27th of July, 1963 imposing a penalty for recovery of Rs. 846/ 12 P. from the Plaintiff's salary is not binding on him being illegal, unequitable, and contrary to law and that the Defendant is not entitled to recover the said amount from the Plaintiff. Similar declarations were claimed in the second and the third suits with respect to orders dated 12th May, 1965 for recovery of Rs. 305/40 P. and dated 27th July, 1963 for the recovery of Rs. 428/12 P. respectively. The trial court dismissed all the three suits which were tried together. The lower appellate court has decreed them on the finding that there was no material before the authority on the basis of which any reasonable man could come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was responsible for the shortage of any material with which the Plaintiff was charged.

(2.) The Plaintiff was a railway servant. At the relevant time when the events took place the Discipline and Appeal Rules for railway servants enforced with effect from 1st of August, 1961 and printed in Volume I of the Indian Railway Establishment Code as Paragraphs 1701 to 1738, were undisputably applicable to him. The relevant rule for imposition of minor penalties like the one imposed on the Plaintiff was the one contained in paragraph 1716. The rule does not require the holding of any enquiry or the taking of any evidence or the giving of any opportunity of oral hearing to the railway servant. It was not suggested in the present case that the Plaintiff was not informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and the allegations on which it was proposed to do so and given an opportunity to make a representation against the same.

(3.) Mr. D. Sanyal, the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration, relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shadi Lal v. State of Punjab, 1973 AIR(SC) 1124 and submitted that in the circumstances the impugned order could not have been challenged at all before the Civil Court and that at any rate not on the ground which found favour with the lower appellate court.