VITHAL MAHADEO KUMBHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was formerly a member of the Railway Protection Force, has filed this petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of an order passed on 21st December 1961 dismissing him from the Force, and also of an earlier order dated 14th January 1961 by which he was suspended from service with retrospective effect.

(2.) AT the material time the petitioner was employed as a Rakshak in the Central Railways. During the night between the 19th and the 20th of August 1959, there was a theft of some scrap materials valued at Rs. 415 and the petitioner was one of the persons arrested in connection with the theft. he was placed under suspension by an order dated 20th August 1959. He was tried and convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of an offence under S. 381 read with S. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his conviction he was dismissed from service with effect from 16th August 1960 by an order dated 9th August 1960. Later, however, his conviction was set aside and he was acquitted in an appeal preferred by him in the High Court Consequntly the Security Officer passed an order on 13th January 1961 by which he cancelled the order of dismissal and directed that the petitoner be trated as being under suspension from 16th August 1960, i. e. from the date of his dismissal under the cancelled order. He was then served with the charge-sheet which contained the charge that, while he was on duty, he had failed to detect and to prevent the theft of scrap materials which were lying in his charge. A departmental inquiry against him was conducted by the Assistant Security Officer. The latter examined serveral witnesses and submitted his report to the Security Officer in the course of which he held that the charge against the petitioner was duly established. The Security Officer called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, and, after receiving the petitioner's reply passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service on 21st December 1961. An appeal filed by the petitioner to the chief Security Officer was dismissed and the order of dismissal was confirmed.

(3.) MOST of the grounds taken in the petition against the order of dismissal relate to the appreciation of the evidence which was recorded by the Assistant Security Officer. The merit or otherwise of those grounds cannot be considered in this petition. Mr. Gurusahani, who appeared for the petitioner, challenged the order of dismissal on two grounds on which its validity could be questioned.