UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATYA BHUSAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Union of India and others against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court making absolute a rule obtained by the respondent directing the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the appellants to rescind and to recall the notice of termination of service dated August 23, 1961 under Rule 149 of the Railway Establishment Code by the General Manager, Eastern Railway and other reliefs.

(2.) THE facts about which there can be no dispute are as follows: The respondent Satya Bhusan Banerjee was appointed as a ticket collector after selection by the Railway Service Commission, on a temporary basis. On March 10, 1961 while he was on duty at gate No. 6 at the Howrah Railway Station he was charged verbally by B.M. Khanna, Additional Commercial Superintendent, Howrah with having allowed a passenger to pass in with unbooked luggage in excess of the exempted weight by taking illgeal gratification of one rupee from him. The respondent denied the allegation but Mr. Khanna got one Abdul Sakhar a passenger carrying a bedding and a small tin box to subscribe to a statement written out by the said B.M. Khanna. On May 11, 1961 the respondent wasplaced under an order of suspension by which he was allowed half pay and other allowances during the period of suspension. This communication which is annexure 'A' to the affidavit -in -opposition is addressed to the Station Superintendent Howrah and is headed 'Sub: Corruption'. No charge sheet was ever submitted to him on July 26, 1961 the respondent made a representation to the Divisional Superintendent Howrah complaining about the protracted period of suspension without framing of any charges against him. On August 22, 1961 he received a communication from the Divisional Superintendent Howrah to the effect that he was taken off suspension immediately and he was directed to resume his duties forthwith. He was also informed that it had been decided to drop disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. On the very next day the General Manager passed an order terminating his service in accordance with Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code to take effect from the forenoon of August 23, 1961, By this order the respondent was allowed one month's pay in lieu of notice of termination of service. He was served with an order dated August 28, 1961 to the effect that consequent on the termination of service by the order of General Manager the respondent had ceased to be in service from the forenoon of August 23, 1961 and that he should receive one month's pay in lieu of notice. The respondent thereafter made representations against the said order to the General Manager, but to no effect.

(3.) THE termination of service was bad and in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The only affidavit -in -opposition in this case was affirmed by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent Mr. Khanna The points made in this affidavit are: (a) The deponent had no reason to be inimically disposed towards the respondent and there was no question of taking revenge on him. (b) The incident of the respondent's taking Re. 1 illegally from a third class passenger to pass out lome unbooked luggage was true as thesaid luggage was weighed and found to be 25 Kg in excess over the examption limit and a statement had been taken from the passenger concerned to that effect. (c) The respondent was placed under suspension as an investigation into his conduct was contemplated by the railway authorities at the time. No charge sheet could be submitted before the completion of the contemplated investigation and in fact no charge sheet, was ever issued to the respondent. (d) The order of August 22, 1961 was inaccurately worded and should have stated that 'the intention of taking disciplinary proceeding against him was being dropped' in place of the words 'it had been decided to drop the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him.' (e) It was the General Manager who directed the termination of the service of the respondent under Rule 149 and it was not by way of penalty. The respondent never exerted any influence over the General Manager in the matter.