PRASADI Vs. WORKS MANAGER M LILLOOAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants before us used to be blacksmiths employed in the Railway Workshop at Lil-looah under the Eastern Railway. On 9-2-1932, a criminal prosecution was launched against them on the allegation that between the hours of 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. in the previous night, they had indulged in gambling, while they should have been attending to their duties. The prosecution, which was under Section 15, Howrah Offences Act, failed, because the learned Magistrate found that the section only punished gambling in the public streets, but not gambling inside any premises. Accordingly, he acquitted them. The Railway Administration, however, thought that the acquittal was only a technical one and that the appellants had been guilty of conduct which called for disciplinary action. They, therefore, started a proceeding.

(2.) The acquittal was on 17-3-1952. On the 24th of March following, the appellants were served with a charge sheet which set out a charge to the effect that the appellants had been guilty of serious misconduct, in that, neglecting their duty, they had been playing cards and gambling in the Blacksmith Shop irom 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. in the night of 9-2-1952. The charge-sheet also called upon the appellants to show cause why they should not be punished with the penalty specified in item 6 of a list of penalties set out therein. Item 6 was ''removal from service." In form, therefore, the notice was one, requiring the appellants to show cause both as to why they should not be found guilty of the charge framed against them and as to why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted.

(3.) In answer to the charge-sheet served on them, the appellants submitted an explanation on 29-3-1952. The explanation was not considered satisfactory and a Committee of Enquiry, constituted of respondents 4, 5 and 6 namely, the Personal Assistant to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, the Assistant Works Manager (M), Lillooah and the Employment Officer, was set up for carrying out an investigation into the charge. It appears that the proceedings before the Committee were protracted and occupied as many as eight months. The appellants were represented before the Committee and took part in its proceedings at every stage.