P KANAKARAJARATNAM Vs. DEPUTY I G RPF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Rakshak (subsequently designated as constable) in the South Central Railway Protection Force of Vijayawada Division in 1962. On the allegation of theft of 49 'bhogi shackle used pins' on 31-10-1979, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was removed from service by the Assistant Security Officer on 14-10-1983. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Security Officer. His appeal was dismissed on 19-9-1984. Then he filed a Second Appeal before the Deputy Inspector Generat of R.P.F., South Central Railway, the 1st respondent herein. That appeal was also dismissed by the 1st respondent on 4-10-1985. The petitioner challenges the validity of the said order of the 1st respondent by praying for a writ of mandamus to declare that order as illegal and without jurisdiction and for a further direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential and incidental benefits.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the Railway Board by proceedings dt. 15-9-1983 with drew the powers of the Assistant Security Officer to impose punishment of removal from service on a Rakshak (constable) and conferred the said power on the Security Officer. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Security Officer, removing the petitioner from service was wholly without jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit for the respondents. The particulars of the petitioner and the proceedings relating to imposition of penalty of removal, are not disputed. It is admitted that the schedule of powers was revised by the Railway Board which was communicated through the letter dt. 15-9- 1983, pursuant to which the Assistant Security Officer is not competent to impose punishment of removal from service on a Rakshak. But it is contended that the said circular was received by the Assistant Security Officer after issuing the final orders of removal. The Railway Board order was received in the office of the Divisional Security Officer on 1-12-1983, whereas the order of removal was passed on 14-10-1983. As the Assistant Security Officer did not receive the circular, his power to impose the penalty was not affected and therefore, there is no illegality in the order of removal passed by the Assistant Security officer as confirmed by the Security Officer and the 1st respondent. In the circumstances it is prayed that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

(3.) Mr. J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the date the 3rd respondent passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service, he had no power to impose that penalty therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed.