B S RATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the following prayers are made which are reproduced as under :-

(2.) Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute in the present case are as under :-

(3.) The petitioner joined Western Railway as an Apprentice on 15th February, 1965. He completed his Apprenticeship training on 24th February, 1969 and was appointed as motorman on 15th March, 1969. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather owned a piece and parcel of land admeasuring 2027 square yards at Cadel Road, Mahim. Petitioner's grandfather expired in 1945 and the property was divided between two sons of his grandfather and his father became owner of about 735 square yards of property in 1947. According to the petitioner, his father got the plan sanctioned for construction of 13 flats on that plot of land and started development of the property in 1962. However, the development could not be completed as the petitioner's father expired on 22nd April 1968. On the death of the petitioner's father, his brother became the karta of the Hindu Undivided Family property. However, since his brother migrated to the United Kingdom in 1962, the petitioner was given Power of Attorney to act on his behalf as karta of Hindu Undivided Family property. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the petitioner became motorman on 15th March, 1959, the Undivided Hindu Family Property devolved on the petitioner and his brother. In 1986, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to inform and abide by Rule 18(1) under Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. This enquiry, however, was closed by Memorandum dated 11th May, 1987. It is the case of the petitioner that railway authorities were fully aware with the fact that he inherited the landed property and after development of the property, the flats were sold by him and that the property was completely developed in the year 1980 and thereafter, the proceedings which were initiated for non-compliance of Rule 18(1) were dropped. Thereafter again, a second chargesheet was issued on 18th December, 1992. It was alleged that the petitioner had not complied with Rule 18(1) and 18(2) by not informing and obtaining prior permission for developing the property and thereafter, selling the flats which were constructed by him. Chargesheet was issued in December, 1992. The inquiry was commenced on 24th June, 1994 and it concluded on 20th September, 1995. The inquiry officer submitted his findings on 7th October, 1996 and found the petitioner guilty of violation of Conduct Rules as alleged in the chargesheet. On the basis of his opinion and on the basis of evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer, an order of removal was passed by respondent no.4 on 16th April, 1997. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. His appeal also was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.