A R S CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are briefly as follows; In 1948, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary brakesman in the B. N. Railway. In May 1949 he was promoted to the rant of a Guard and posted at Khargpuf. The B. N. Railway has subsequently merged in the Eastern Railway. On or about 25-5-1951, while the petitioner was working at Nainpur, he was verbally ordered to proceed to Khargpur and attend an enquiry. He was not informed as to the subject-matter of the enquiry and no charge-sheet was framed against him at the time. At Khargpur the petitioner was informed that the said enquiry was against four Railway servants including himself, in respect of certain stolen articles. The petitioner alleges that he was confronted by four persons and directed to cross-examine them. It appears that the Railway authorities obtained confidential information that certain Khargpur Guards would be carrying stolen articles which had been previously found missing on transit. Certain articles were apprehended in a brake van sometime in August 1950 and the enquiry was to find out the connection of four guards including the petitioner, with these goods. There took place, what is called a "First class joint enquiry", feeing an enquiry by four officers. At this enquiry, a number of witnesses were examined, but all in the absence of the petitioner. On 31-5-1951, the petitioner was confronted with four witnesses, viz., Wilson, Ghose, Pal and Chatler-jee. These witnesses had already made statements implicating the petitioner. Apart from the fact that these statements had been made in the absence of the petitioner, he was not even furnished with a copy of their statements. He was merely asked to cross-examine them. According to the petitioner, he asked for time but was compelled to go on then and there, and examine these witnesses, without being told as to what were the specific charges against him and what the witnesses had said against the petitioner. This however is not the whole picture. The petitioner was not confronted with all the witnesses that gave evidence against him. The Report of the enquiry (Ex. 'B' to the petition) shows that at least 6 witnesses deposed against the petitioner. It is difficult to identify all of them, as only cryptic abbreviations denoting their rank are used. However, it is admitted by learned Advocate for the respondent that at least one witness, namely literate watchman A. Rahman had given evidence, upon which the enquiry tribunal relied, but he was not at all called to be cross-examined by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, an attempt has been made to make out a case that the petitioner wanted to cross-examine, only "some" of the witnesses who had given evidence against him. This is wholly misleading, because the petitioner was never told as to who had given evidence against him, and what they had said. He was merely confronted with four witnesses and asked to cross-examine them.

(2.) The petitioner then went back to Khargpur and on 14-8-1951, was verbally informed that he had been suspended from the afternoon of that date. It appears that the Joint Enquiry Committee made a report on 8-6-1951, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.

(3.) On 14-8-1951, a formal charge-sheet was Issued upon the petitioner. It runs as follows: