MILKHA SINGH BHANDU SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MILKHA Singh, petitioner is stated to have joined the service of North Western railway on the 22nd September 1926 and was confirmed as a Station Master grade 1, in July 1944. In September 1949, he was removed from service by the then Divisional Transportation Officer. Thereupon he instituted a suit in 1951 challenging his removal and also made a representation to the Minister concerned whereupon he was re-appointed in service for 6 months to begin with, the question of his reinstatement to be opened for consideration after report regarding his work. On 12th December, 1953, the General Manager ordered the petitioner to be continued in his appointment and restored him to his old pay and seniority. The petitioner thus held a permanent post in substantive capacity on which there was no lien of anybody else; he was shown at No. 4 in the Seniority List of the Station masters of his Grade in the Ferozepore Division. He thereafter continued to hold the post of the Station Master at different stations and in February 1960 he was posted as Station Master, Madhopur, on account of his ill-health under medical advice. Roundabout that time the petitioner's relations with the Divisional operating Superintendent, Northern Railway, became strained because, as the petitioner puts it, he was unable to please him by offering illegal gratifications. The petitioner was consequently victimised and harassed in various ways In March 1961, the petitioner was transferred to Mallanwal Khas, and in April, 1961. he was ordered to be transferred and posted at Jaitu. Jaitu, so says the petition, was a heavy "working station" and the petitioner on account of his prolonged ill-health was advised not to take heavy work Naturally he, therefore, protested against this transfer. In April, 1961, he appealed to the Divisional Superintendent against this transfer and in May 1961 he preferred another appeal to the General Manager, but no final action was taken on these appeals. The petitioner was to retire on superannuation on 31st December 1961? but in spite of this impending retirement he was ordered to be transferred from Jaitu to Pakki which is a small wayside station without any medical and educational facilities. This, according to the petitioner, amounted to reduction in rank. On 10th April 1962 the petitioner appealed to the Divisional superintendent against his transfer in which he made allegations of corruption against certain subordinate officers and others who were colluding with the divisional Commercial Superintendent and the Divisional Operating superindendent, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in these proceedings. As a result of enquiry, some action was taken against one Pooran Singh, Goods Clerk, but respondents Nos. 4 and 5 shelved that enquiry The petitioner also made another representation in May 1962 but no action was taken on that representation. On 1st june 1962. the petitioner's transfer was cancelled under the orders of the General manager and this annoyed respondents Nos. 4 and 5 with the result that they became vindictive towards the petitioner. Five charge sheets were issued to the petitioner on various dates in 1962. On 28th July 1962, two wagons were placed for loading of goods but the consignors failed to start loading within the scheduled time. For this reason the petitioner ordered the cancellation pf their turn and forfeited their security fee. The Goods Clerk and the Railway Broker, however, allowed loading of the wagons by the original consignors but they were eventually unloaded under the orders of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. On a complaint having been filed by the consignors, enquiry was held but it was found to be without substance. In spite of this the petitioner was served with a new charge-sheet on 25/27th August, 1962. On 14th August, 1962, the petitioner was ordered by respondent No. 4 to be suspended from service. On 1st September 1962, the petitioner furnished a reply to the charge-sheet. He, however, continued under suspension without any enquiry being held. In the meanwhile the petitioner submitted several representations to the Divisional Superintendent and the general Manager and one representation was also made to the Hon'ble Railway minister praying that the case against him should be finalised. On 28th December, 1962, the petitioner interviewed the General Manager and complained to him about his victimisation at the hands of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 with the result that the petitioner was allowed to join his duty on 1st January 1963 and ordered to work as Rest Giver Station Master. On this post, the petitioner was required to go to six stations in a week. This apparently was a sort of punishment imposed on the petitioner. On 9th January 1963, the petitioner received a notice terminating his services with effect from 11th February, 1963. It is this notice which is being assailed in the present petition in the background of the facts mentioned above.

(2.) IN the return the assertion of the petitioner's relations having been strained with respondent No. 5 has been denied. The petitioner's transfer to Jaitu, according to return, had been made on his own request with the result that the question of his protest against this posting could not arise. The petitioner, however, complained about the heavy work at Jaitu. He was asked to give it in writing so that he may be transferred on account of his inability to cope with the work but he declined to do so. The petitioner was, however, transferred to Pakki because of his unsatisfactory work at Jaitu. The assertion about the collusion of the subordinate officers with respondents Nos. 4 and 5 has also been denied. Some beoparies at Jaitu, according to reply, had complained against this Station master for cancellation of the allotment of two wagons on the plea that they had actually begun the loading of those wagons within the scheduled time An enquiry into the complaint disclosed that the charge against the Station Master was incorrect though he was found responsible for certain other serious irregularities for which he was served with a charge-sheet in August, 1962. The Goods Clerk was likewise served with a charge-sheet simultaneously for certain irregularities. Both of these officers were suitably punished in due course. The petitioner was admitted to have been placed under suspension by the divisional Commercial Superintendent on the 14th August, 1962 and was also charge-sheeted. The assertion that the petitioner was asked to join duty as a result of his interview with the General Manager has been denied. It was the petitioner's inability to cope with the work at Jaitu that he was ordered to be posted as Rest Giver Station Master with headquarters at Jaitu because nearabout time of his retirement it was not considered desirable to transfer him from Jaitu station. In this post he was expected to work for 5 days at other stations and for one day at Jaitu. This, according to the reply, was in the petitioner's own interest as he was unable to cope with the work at Jaitu and also as there were complaints against him in regard to his working.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has in the first instance submitted that the order in this case is one of removal and, therefore, without complying with the provisions of Article 311 such an order could not be made; secondly, this order has been described to have been made by an incompetent authority; in the third place Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code on which the impugned order purports to be based has been challenged as ultra vires, and finally the action has been alleged to be mala fide.