MAHENDRA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as a ticket collector by order dated 9-91971 made by the Divisional Personnel Officer of the South Eastern Railway at Khurda Road and with effect from that date he was posted in such capacity at the Cuttack Railway Station. On 6-8-1975, petitioner was served with an order dated 2 8-1975 passed by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent 'opposite party No. 2) to the following effect: As you are guilty of serious misconduct in that you have demanded and accepted Rs. 5 from a passenger travelling without ticket from Kendrapara Road to Cutlack by 8 UP while working as a Ticket Collector on duty at the South Gate at Cuttack on 15-7-1975 at 5. 40 hours without issuing any receipt for the same, I have decided that under Rule 14 ii of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, you should be removed from service with effect from the date of receipt of this letter. Petitioner impugnes the said order in this application for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the order founded upon misconduct warranted a proceeding under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and having been made without complying with the provisions thereof is vitiated in law.

(2.) THE opposite parties have made a return to the rule issued from this Court and opposite party No. 2 has given the counter affidavit. In paragraph 5 thereof, the following assertion has been made: That the averments made in paragraph 8 of the petition are correct in so far as it states that the petitioner was removed from service by the appointing authority (opposite party No. 2 without holding any inquiry by virtue of the power vested in him under Rule 14 (ii) of the Rules. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct of accepting bribe from a passenger, consequently he was removed from service. In paragraph 8 of the said counter affidavit, it has been further stated: In the interest of Administration and Public Service, the Disciplinary Authority considered that it would not be expedient to expose the members of the Vigilance staff, who has to keep watch over the activities of staff secretly to detect the commissioning of offences, viz. , accepting illegal gratification, etc. It was also considered by the Disciplinary Authority that by the existing Rules it would not be possible to compel the outsiders and or passengers from whom the said money was taken illegally to be a witness in a departmental inquiry. In the said circumstances, it was considered by the Disciplinary Authority that it would not be possible or expedient to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of Rules 9 to 13 of the said Rules. In paragraph 10 of the said counter affidavit, it has been further stated :. . . . It is humbly submitted that the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, S. E. Railway, Khurda Road, who is the disciplinary authority in case of the Ticket Collector of Class III of the Railways was convinced from the materials on record before him, especially the report of the Vigilance staff and the statement of the passenger that it would not be possible to hold the inquiry under the provisions of the Rules. In the present context of promulgation of the Emergency condition in India, the Railway Administration is determined to wipe out corruption at all levels and on a finding that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold inquiry to go into the charges against the petitioner , the disciplinary authority invoked the power vested in him under Rule 14 in of the Rules and passed the order impugned. The order was given in writing after application of mind by the competent authority and it was felt that initiation of regular proceeding, finalisation of which would take a considerable time would be detrimental to the interest of the country as a whole. Hence it was considered that this was a fit case where an inquiry cannot be held according to the Rules 9 to 13 of the Rules and in view of the seriousness of the offence, it was decided by the opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and summary procedure provided under Rule 14 (ii) of the Rules will be made applicable to him.

(3.) IT is not disputed that petitioner is holder of a civil post under the Union of India. Therefore, he is entitled to the protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. There is also no dispute before us that the rules contained in Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1968 which provide similar protection to railway employees are applicable to him. Indisputably the order by which petitioner is aggrieved is one which removes him from service for misconduct. Therefore, an inquiry was warranted in which petitioner was to be informed of the charges against him; if the petitioner did not accept the charges the same had to be established by evidence and petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of leading evidence in support of his defence and be heard in the matter. The ambit and content of protection available to a holder of a civil post under Government has been laid down in clear terms in the case of Khem Chand v. Union of India Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "disciplinary Rules") applicable to petitioner provides: