MALLA REDDY E Vs. SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the dismissal of the petitioner made on 8 February 1961.

(2.) THE petitioner was an assistant goods clerk alt Tenali railway station in the year 1960. While there, the following two charges were framed against him on 8 April 1960: While you were working as senior assistant goods clerk, from 1 July 1959 onwards at Tenali railway station, you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as you demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 35 on 11 November 1969, from Sri T. Hanuman Das of Tenali for the twenty wagons unloaded and thereby contravened Rule 3 of the Railway (Servants) Conduct Rules, 1956. During the above period, while you were working as senior assistant goods clerk at Tenali railway station, you committed misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty has much as boa habitually demanded and obtained illegal gratification ranging from Rs. 2-4-0 no Rs. 16 for wagons unloaded and loaded through hundekars by name Sarvasri Shaik Masthan, Shaik Subhan Sahib, Narnath, Hanuman Das and T. Pulla Rao, and thereby contravened Rule 3 of the Railway (Servants) Conduct Rules, 1956. He was asked to submit an explanation within seven days from the receipt of the notice. These charges were served on him on 12 April 1960.

(3.) AN explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 12 May 1960 (more than a month of the receipt of the notice ). The Divisional Commercial Superintendent, who framed the charges and who considered the explanation of the petitioner, put up the papers to the Divisional Operating Superintendent, an authority competent to dismiss the petitioner, for directing an enquiry. The latter officer, after satisfying himself that it was a case for departmental enquiry, directed that enquiry should be held by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent. This officer, after an elaborate enquiry lasting from 16 September 1960 to 5 November 1960, found the petitioner to be guilty of the first charge and forwarded his report to the Divisional Operating Superintendent for necessary action. The competent authority, on a consideration of the report, accepted the findings of the enquiring officer and issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed.