BAIDYANATH SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Security Officer, South Eastern Railway against the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Railway Protection Force and at the relevant time, the petitioner was attached to the Shalimar Yard. The petitioner's case is that on 29th November, 1975, when the petitioner after performing his duties was about to hand over charge, the respondent no.6, the Officer-in-Charge, Railway Protection Force, Shalimar, Howrah, along with other Railway Protection Force personal restrained the petitioner from leaving the office and he was taken to his office and was asked to sign some blank papers but the petitioner had refused to do so. The petitioner contends that thereafter he was assaulted severely and was tortured inhumanly and when the petitioner lost his normal sense because of such torture, the respondent no.6 got something recorded. The petitioner also contends that four criminal cases against the petitioner were filed but the petitioner ultimately got discharged from the said criminal proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the order of dismissal.

(2.) It has been stated in the said order which is annexure 'C' to the writ petition that the petitioner is also guilty of serious misconduct in that on the night of 25th November, 1975 there was theft of clothes from shed No.4 in the Shalimar Yard and also in other identical crimes of theft of clothes from Shalimar Goods Shed reported on 26th September, 1975, his complicity in the crime came to light. The said Assistant Security Officer was satisfied that the circumstances of the case were such that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner as provided for in Railway Protection Force Rules 44, 45 and 46. The said Officer, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules removed the said petitioner from the service with effect from 29th November, 1975. The materials on the basis of which the said power under Rule 47 was exercised were, however, not disclosed and it was also not disclosed as to why holding of enquiry was not reasonably practicable in the case of the petitioner.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner made representation to the higher authorities but the petitioner did not receive any intimation whatsoever and according to the petitioner his departmental appeal was pending. It has, however, been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the said appeal was disposed of and the same was dismissed. The notice of the same was sent to the petitioner but it could not be served as the petitioner was not found. The learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter made an oral prayer before this Court that the writ petition should be treated as amended to the effect that the said appellate order is also challenged as illegal and invalid and the said prayer was allowed.