PANDURANG RAMA Vs. DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, CENTRAL RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person who was holding a post of a fitter and went on leave for two months. He rejoined at the end of the leave on May 21, 1954, and it appears that on May 23, 1954, he did not attend the Office on the ground that May 23, was a rest day for him. He did not subsequently resume his duties until May 28. On that date he produced a certificate from a railway doctor that he was fit to resume his duties, the certificate having been actually given by the doctor on May 27. A notice was then served upon him to show cause why because of certain conduct alleged to be misconduct, action should not be taken against him, the action mentioned being permanent reversion to the post of Basic Fitter in the grade of Rs. 35 -60 per month. The notice also called upon him to show cause why any lesser penalty should not be inflicted. The petitioner gave his explanation and it appears that subsequently respondent No. 1, who is the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, passed an order permanently reverting him to the post of Basic Fitter in the grade of Rs. 35 -60 per month. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Transportation Superintendent, who passed an order, in the first instance, on October 28, 1955, asking the petitioner to resume his original, post with effect from November 1, 1955, and ultimately he confirmed this order on September 29, 1956. In the result, therefore, the petitioner was punished by being reduced to the post on a lower grade for the period from October 1, 1954, to October 31, 1955.

(2.) THE petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and it is urged on his behalf, in the first instance, that the notice which called upon him to show cause why he should not be reduced to a lower post or a lesser penalty should not be imposed upon him was vitiated because it was vague. Now, there is no substance in this contention because the only alleged vagueness consists in the fact that the petitioner Avas not told whether the order which the Foreman had passed calling upon him to explain his absence on May 23, 1954, was oral or was passed in writing. It seems to us that this is not really a complaint which could, be utilized to characterise the notice which was given as a vague one; nor can it be said that the notice was vitiated because of the absence of mention in the notice as to whether the order which the foreman gave was oral or was in writing.

(3.) IN our opinion, this contention has no substance either. Even if the first notice told the petitioner that he had to show cause why he should not be reduced to a lower post, that was a superfluity; but whether it was a superfluity or not, it does not render the second notice which specifically told the petitioner the action proposed to be taken against him a mere routine matter. In the result, therefore, the second notice which was given to the petitioner was a valid notice. Two notices were given to the petitioner and an opportunity was given to him first to show cause against the misconduct, and, in the second instance, to show cause against the punishment which, it was proposed, would be inflicted upon him.