LAWS(CAL)-1963-7-18

JAWALA PROSAD SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY

Decided On July 03, 1963
JAWALA PROSAD SINGH Appellant
V/S
GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner used to serve as a Treasure Guard in the Eastern Railway. While the petitioner was posted at the Bandel Pay Office, a fact finding committee was constituted composed of (i) A. K. Roy Choudhuri, Divisional Accounts Officer, (ii) Mani Chakraborty, Divisional Personnel Officer, and (iii) H. N. Chatterjee, Divisional Engineer, to enquire into a suspected case of misappropriation of railway money in Bandel Pay Office. It is stated that the fact finding committee found a prima facie case against the petitioner. On the basis of the report made by the fact finding committee, the Chief Cashier, Eastern Railway, served a notice on the petitioner, dated August 3, 1959, charging him as here in below stated : -

(2.) THEREAFTER, there was an Enquiry Committee constituted, composed of the self same persons with whom the fact finding committee had been constituted and A. K. Roy Choudhury, the Divisional Accounts Officer, was made the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee. After some witnesses had been examined by this enquiry committee. A. K. Roy Choudhury was transferred elsewhere and the vacancy thus caused in the Enquiry Committee was filled up by appointing R. N. Vakil, the successor in office to A. K. Roy Choudhury. The Enquiry Committee submitted a report, by which the petitioner was found guilty of all the three charges abovementioned. Thereupon, the Chief Accounts Officer, Eastern Railway, issued another notice, dated February 1, 1961 to the petitioner, inter alia stating that he was of the opinion that the charges had been proved against the petitioner and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner showed cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner showed cause against the proposed penalty and asked for a further personal hearing. No such hearing was given to the petitioner but by an order dated March 20,1961, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, Eastern Railway, but that appeal also failed. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for the quashing of the order of his dismissal, as affirmed in appeal and also for a writ in the nature of Mandamus on the respondents directing them to refrain from giving effect to the order and obtained this Rule.

(3.) MR. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioner argued the following points in support of the Rule. He contended, in the first place, that the petitioner had been appointed by the Chief Accounts Officer, as such the Chief Cashier, who was subordinate in rank to the Chief Accounts Officer, could not issue the charge sheet, as done in this case. He contended, in the next place, that A. K. Roy Choudhury had taken an important part in the fact finding committee, which found the petitioner guilty of the charges and he should not have been made the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee on the ground that he was likely to have a. foresworn mind against the petitioner. The same contention was leveled against the other members of the committee. In the third place, Mr. Sinha contended that the petitioner had asked for production of one S. N. Chatterjee, a railway employee for proving his defence and although the said S. N. Choudhury was under the control of the railway authorities, he was not produced at the enquiry for being examined by the petitioner. Mr. Sinha also argued that so as to cover up the irregularities and illegalities committed during the enquiry, the petitioner was compelled to sign a certificate therein stating that he had been given proper facilities at the enquiry and had little to complain. It was lastly contended that the enquiry was vitiated by gross irregularity in that the committee was reconstituted during the enquiry and Mr. Vakil had no opportunity of hearing the evidence and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, who had been examined at a time when he was not a member of the committee.