BIMAL KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI Vs. EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is directed against a notice directing the petitioner, a railway servant, to show cause why he should not be reduced in rank from the post of a tracer to that of a peon, for a period of three years. The circumstances leading to the issue of the notice are hereinafter briefly stated.

(2.) ACCORDING to the affidavit -in -opposition, filed by the respondents, the petitioner was appointed, in the year 1946, as a peon, on a pay of Es. 12 per month, in the railway unit, then known as the B.A. Railway. He was subsequently promoted as a record -supplier, with effect from 1 February 1947, In the scale of pay of Rs. 17 -25 and was posted at Kanchrapara. From there he was transferred to Lumding, on 27 August 1947, but as there was no vacancy at that time at Lumding, the petitioner was directed to report to the Transfer Office/India. This being the time of partition of India, considerable confusion was prevailing. The petitioner, it Is said, took advantage of the confusion and when he was transferred to the Eastern Railway unit, he was, on representation by him, posted as a tracer at Asanscl division, on 15 October 1947, in the scale, of pay of Rs. 60 -150. On 13 January 1948, in reinforcement of his representation, the petitioner is said to have made a false declaration to the effect that he was a tracer in the B.A. Railway. On that representation, a new service -sheet was opened for the petitioner, because the old service records and flies had not still then been received from the B.A. Railway administration. When, later on, the old records arrived, it was detected that a part of It, relating to the period of the petitioner's service at Lumding and thereafter, was missing. Armed with the information, derived from the petitioner's service records, that declaration made by the petitioner was false, the respondent, Divisional Personnel Officer, suspended the petitioner on 9 May 1960, and thereafter served this petitioner with a chargesheet, couched in the following language: You are charged with the following offences or failures and you are hereby called upon to show cause why you should not be punished with the penalty specified in item 6 of the list below or punished with any of the lesser penalties specified in the said list. The facts and/or circumstances whereon the charges has/have been based are as related below: * * *Charges For serious misconduct in that:

(3.) THE respondent -Divisional Personnel Officer thereupon asked the petitioner to have Inspection 'of the documents, on 21 June 1960, at the forger's office. The petitioner, however, did not accept the offer to take inspection. He insisted upon copies, of the documents being given to him, which request, however, was not complied with. The petitioner does not appear to have submitted his explanation to the chargesheet.