SAYED ASHAN ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a record clerk in the employment of the Southeastern Railway at Cuttack, was dismissed from service on a charge of having obtained railway passes for the purpose of his family and department relatives including therein a defendant unmarried sister-though he had usually no such dependent relative--as mentioned in the charge.

(2.) ON 6 September 1961, the District Engineer, Southeastern Railway, Cuttack, charged the petitioner with having committed the said offence and asked him for his explanation. Thereafter, in the course of disciplinary proceeding against him there was an enquiry and ultimately on 31 January 1964, the General Manager, Southeastern Railway, dismissed the petitioner from service. This order was communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Southeastern Railway, by his letter, dated 2 February 1964. It is against this order of dismissal that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE points urged on behalf of the petitioner are, in substance, these: The proceedings against the petitioner should have been initiated by the appointing authority and not by the District Engineer. The General Manager who passed the order of dismissal did not apply his mind. It was also submitted that the explanation of the petitioner in his reply to the second notice, before the action proposed to be taken against; him, was not considered afresh; and thus the, petitioner was not given the second opportunity as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.