CHANDRESH PANDE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition highlights the fact how at times over-zealous and over-enthusiastic officers in charge of the cases in their over-enthusiasm not merely vie with each other in distortion of facts to their convenience and in belying their own record. Two senior officers of the Railway administration have, it appears, done all that they could to pollute their oath and sparing nothing in fouling the fountain of justice. It is their conduct, which is interwoven throughout the warp and weft of this petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a Grade-B Fireman in Ratlam division of Western Railway, by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of removal from service, passed against him in 31st July, 1982, and filed as Annexure-C to the petition.

(3.) The petitioner, by numerous representations, oral and written, had brought it to the notice of the railway administration as to how some of his co-employees, had succeeded in receiving appointments and promotions, in the railways by submitting false certificates, about their being members of the Scheduled Castes or Tribes, as also about their educational qualifications. This affected the petitioner's chances of promotion, as also many of his colleagues. The injustice done had assumed such exhorbitant proportions, and the representations having failed to yield any result, in order to attract attention of the authorities, he thought of some direct action. The respondents admit that the petitioner had submitted numerous representations (para 2 of the return). They also admit that investigations were made by the authorities. It is disputed by the respondents that the petitioner while undergoing training at the Area Training School, Ratlam proceeded on leave from 19th April, 1982, for which he submitted an application by registered post, which was received by the senior D.M.E. next day. (The leave was sought to be extended by another ten days for which proper telegram was sent to the D.M.E.) The petitioner sought extension of leave, for another period of ten days and sent a telegram to the D. M. E. for the purpose. The respondents while admitting the above facts, denounce the petitioner as absconding':-