N L SEN PETITIONER Vs. A M E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this Rule challenges an order of removal from service issued by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (P), Eastern Railway,. Howrah, dated 11-6-1976. The said order was to be effective from 22nd June, 1976.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that while working as fireman group h in Howrah Loco-shed, the petitioner changed his name from Nirmal Chandra Nag to Nirendra Lal Sen by making an affidavit for the purpose of deriving undue benefits by declaring himself to have passed Matriculation Examination in 1944 on the basis of a certificate issued in favour of some other n. L. Sen and had thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and honesty as a railway employee, violating Rule 3 (1)of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966. It was further alleged that the said Matriculation certificate was intended to be utilised in support of the claim of the petitioner for the post of Leading fireman Group A. The enquiry officer found that the allegations against petitioner had been proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with the report of the enquiry officer and directed issue of show cause notice for his removal from service. It is alleged by the petitioner that this show cause notice was never served on him. From the side of the respondents, reliance was placed on the statement, made in the order of removal, which is the subject matter of challenge in this proceeding, to the effect that the petitioner refused to accept service of this second show cause notice.

(3.) MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, Senior standing Counsel, appearing with mr. Sudipto Moitra, Advocate in support of the Rule, has contended that the en-tire proceeding, including the final order of dismissal, is liable to be quashed on the ground of failure of the respondents to comply with the relevant rules at different stages. In developing the aforesaid point, Mr. Chatterjee has contended that there has been a violation of Rule 9 sub-rule 7 inasmuch as the petitioner was not given access to the relevant documents, inspection of which was asked for by him; secondly, it has been contended that the copy of the report of the assistant Mechanical Engineer not having been served on him, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice; thirdly, Mr. Chatterjee has contended that the second show cause notice was never served on the petitioners. In addition to the above instances of violation of the rules in the matter of conducting the enquiry and passing the order of removal, there was another contention, raised by Mr. Chatterjee, namely that the order of removal is not a speaking order as required by the relevant rules, inasmuch as, it does not record the findings on the charges against the petitioner. According to Mr. Chatterjee, reasons for arriving at a particular finding may not be necessary but the finding itself has to be recorded.