AMAR NATH GUPTA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Amar Nath Gupta challenging the legality of the order dated 30-7-1964 passed by the Senior Personnel Officer III, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, respondent No. 3, reverting him to his parent Department with effect from 3-8-64.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about facts in this case. In the year 1925 the petitioner joined the North Western Railway. In 1947 after the partition of the country, he migrated to India and became an employee of the Eastern Punjab Railway. This Railway now formed a part of the Northern Railway. On 3-3-1952 he was promoted as a Senior Clerk Grade III. In May 1952 he was made an Assistant Fire Master. In 1953 he was confirmed as Clerk in Grade III, by the Works Manager, Northern Railway Workshop, Jagadhri, respondent No. 2. In 1956 the General Manager of the Northern Railway, respondent No. 1, asked the different Heads of the Northern Railway to send the names of the employees, who were suitable for appointment as Vigilance Inspectors. Accordingly in May 1956 the General Manager interviewed a number of such employees and selected 8 out of them, including the petitioner for these posts in Grade 260-350. The work of the petitioner as a Vigilance Inspector was considered satisfactory and no adverse report was given to him till May 1963. In March 1958 he was even granted a commendation certificate for the good work done by him. In May 1959 his name was approved for the post of Vigilance Inspector in the prescribed scale of Rs. 300-400. He was also given cash rewards and commendation certificates for the nice work done by him. He went on drawing his usual increments and on 1-7-1963 he reached the maximum of the scale. Some time in 1963 an anonymous complaint challenging his integrity was made to the Superintendent Police, Special Police Establishment, Delhi. According to the petitioner, this complaint was the result of his having incurred the displeasure of certain persons against whom he had made reports of corruption etc. in the discharge of his duties. In pursuance of this anonymous complaint, according to the petitioner, he was asked to submit his statement of assets and liabilities, which he did in that very year. Later on 23-6-1964 he was charge-sheeted by respondent No. 3 and was informed that it was proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against him under Rules 1708 to 1715 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I. He was also supplied with the statement of allegations on which the charges were based. According to the respondents, on the other hand, they had no knowledge about the petitioner's incurring the displeasure or hostility of anybody, but in a report received from the Superintendent Police, Special Police Establishment New Delhi, in April 1964, he was considered responsible for the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. On 27-6-1964 he asked for the copies of certain documents for the purpose of submitting his explanation. On 30-7-1964 the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 3 reverting him to his parent Department and directing him to report to respondent No. 2 for further orders. In pursuance of this order, he was relieved on 5-8-1964. Thereafter, he applied to the Assistant Personnel Officer, Workshop Jagadhri, for the sanction of two months' leave with effect from 14-8-1964. By an order dated 4-12-1964 respondent No. 2 posted the petitioner as a Head Clerk on a pay of Rs. 290/- in the authorised scale of Rs. 290/330 with effect from 5-12-1964. The present writ petition was filed on 19-12-1964 challening the impugned order of his reversion.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel is that the petitioner had been reverted as a measure of punishment and since this order had been passed without complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, the same was bad in law and deserved to be quashed.