LAWS(CAL)-1975-4-19

SREERAM LOHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 22, 1975
SREERAM LOHAR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against an order dated February 22, 1973 passed by the Works Manager, Eastern Railway, Liluah removing the petitioner from his service.

(2.) ON April 6, 1972 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the Works Manager (Finishing), Eastern Railway, Liluah for having unauthorised possession of a Dynamo Belt on January 4, 1972, while functioning as a Carpenter under Foreman 'm' Shop, eastern Railway, Liluah. On April 17, 1972, he submitted a reply to :he said charge-sheet, denying the charges levelled against him. By an order dated May 3, 1972, the Respondent No. 2 directed to hold an enquiry and appointed Respondent No. 3 as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The enquiry was started on June 22, 1972. It continued till October 10, 1972, during which nine witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on November 14, 1972. Thereafter on December 1, 1972 the respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. On december 30, 1972 the petitioner submitted his explanation to the proposed punishment pointing out inter alia that the finding of the inquiry Officer was wholly extraneous to the materials on record. During the enquiry it had not been proved that the material alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner was a Railway Property. On March 2, 1973 the petitioner was served with a notice of removal from service issued by the Works Manager (F), Eastern Railway, liluah. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule.

(3.) MR. Mukharji, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on evidence and no reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that the petition picked up the material, kept the same in a plastic bag with a jeep fastener before the arrivel of the workshop staff. The materials on the record did not show that the material alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, was a Railway Property. According to Mr. Mukherji, the said report being perversed should be set aside.