JYOTI PRASAD BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 118 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, by an order published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated November 26, 1973, prohibited any strike in connection with any industrial dispute in any of the railway services in India for a period of six months with effect from 6th November, 1973. All India Railway Strike started from 6.00 hours on May 8, 1974, by all categories of railway men. The petitioners are seven in number. All of them are Supervisors of various ranks in the Railways. They were removed from their services by orders dated 16th, 25th and 27th of May, 1974, under Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and appeal) Rules 1968. The petitioner No.6, J. N. Roy was, arrested on the 10th of May 1974. He was released on the 16th of May, 1974. It is alleged that powers have been exercised by the respondent No.2, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway, arbitrarily, and solely with the motive of victimisation. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said removal, moved this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present rule.

(2.) The petitioners challenge the impugned orders on the ground that it was not a "speaking order". It did not record in writing therein the reasons nor did it disclose the mental process by which conclusion was arrived at, justifying the recourse to the extraordinary powers conferred by Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1968.

(3.) Two affidavits have been fled by the Respondents. Both of them have been affirmed by Bipin Behari Lal, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway who passed the order. In the main affidavit, he denied that there was any victimisation on the part of the railway administration and that pursuant to policy of victimisation the orders of removal were issued. He said, that it was not necessary to indicate the source and nature of information derived and circumstances upon consideration of which he passed the orders. In the supplementary affidavit he, however, disclosed the sources and annexed some reports to justify his action. It is stated in the supplementary affidavit that against the background of the emergent situation that had arisen out of the Railway Strike, which was string at the very roots of national economy and adding to the sufferings of the common man as well as the public at large, it was decided to exercise the special powers vested in the administration. The conditions were not at all opportune for following the normal disciplinary procedure to issue charge-sheets, holding inquiries, etc., to effect the removal. Apart from the fact that in the highly explosive and turbulent mood of the labour, the normal disciplinary procedure would have been extremely protracted and time consuming. There would have been hardly any staff who would have dared to come out and evidence. The witnesses would not be forthcoming because of intimidation and threat. In workshop, the strength of staffs' is ten thousand. Removal under this had to be done in only 43 cases i.e. less than 0.5 percentage.