AJOY CHANDRA BAGCHI, D. I. P. F., EASTERN RAILWAY ASANSOL Vs. THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner is praying for an appropriate writ for setting aside an order of compulsory retirement dated June 23, 1972 passed by the Chief Security Officer, Eastern Railway in exercise of his powers under Rule 2046(H) (ii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. 2 and also for a mandate upon the respondents not to action two adverse entries recorded in the confidential character roll of the petitioner and as communicated to him by memo dated Jan. 11, 1972 and April 21, 1972. The relevant facts may be set out in brief.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed a cipper operator in the then Bengal and Assam Railway on may 16, 1934. Such appointment was made by the General Manager of the said Railway. He was transferred to the Watch and Ward Department, as a Sub Inspector I. I here is no dispute that the said Department being reorganised and administration of the Railway having been taken over the Government, petitioner became a member of the Railway Protection Force in dispute that he was promoted and confirmed as an Inspector Grade III in the said Force at the relevant time. On Dec. 12, 1969 he was transferred from Gaya Circle to Burdwan and after he had served at Burdwan for nearly one and half years he was transferred to Asansol by an order dated June 6, 1971. According to the petitioner such transfer was not bonafide but was obtained at the instance of some members of the force whose transfer he recommended for improvement of the organisation. It now appears that he preferred objection one and appeals against such order of transfer and also moved this court under. Art. 226 of the Constitution in or about Dec., 1971 disputing the said order of transfer in order 4007(W) of 1971. According to him he was forced to join at Asansol though he had to leave back his family at the Railway Quarters at Burdwan. Disputes and differences arose between him and me authorities over his continued occupation of the Railway Quarters at Burdwan and at that stage two adverse entries in his confidential character roll were recorded one by the respondent No. 1 and the other by respondent No. 2 which were communicated to him respectively on Jan. 11, 1972 and April 21, 1972. According to the petitioner such adverse entries were not bonafide but were made with the ulterior motive of creating a foundation for putting the petitioner on premature retirement. According to the petitioner things happened as anticipated and by the impugned order dated June 23, 1972, passed by the respondent No. 1 he was directed to go on forced retirement at the age of 55 years. Such order was made in exercise of powers under Rule 2046 (N) (ii). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid adverse entries and the impugned order of compulsory retirement the petitioner has moved this court on the prayers referred to hereinbefore and has obtained the above Rule.

(3.) Mr. Chakraborty, appearing is support of this Rule, has first contended that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated June 23, 1972 by the Chief Security Officer is beyond his jurisdiction inasmuch as the General Manager an authority superior to the Chief Security Officer, was bis appointing authority. Obviously strong exceliance is placed by Mr. Chakraborty on the two annexures 'A' and 'B' in pointing out that it was the General Manager who had appointed the petitioner. In my view, however, this contention of Mr. Chakraborty is not well founded. There is no dispute that power under Rule 2046(H) can be exercised only by the appointing authority. But the term 'appointing authority' in this clause does not mean the authority who had actually appointed the person to be put on compulsory retirement. The term has been defined by the Note added to the proviso to mean the authority competent to make the first appointment to the grade which the Railway servant for the time being holds. It is not being disputed by Mr. Chakraborty that at the relevant time when the order was made Chief Security Officer was the competent authority to make the appointment to the grade of Inspectors Grade III. Therefore, even if the petitioner might have been appointed by the General Manager yet the Chief Security Officer, in my opinion would be competent enough to direct his compulsory retirement under Rule 2046(H). Mr. Chakraborty contended that the State should not be read as a part of the Rule so as to conter authority on the Chief Security Officer 10 exercise the powers, i am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Chakraborty. In the present case the Note is an integral part of the Rule itself having teen incorporated by the Rule making authority. Under such circumstances it would not be proper for me to construe the Rule without giving due effects to the Note itself. in this view I find no substance in the lust point rased by Mr. Chakraborty in support of this Rule.