RAM SAHAI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Sahai petitioner in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for setting aside of an order dated 16th May, 1962 (copy annexure 'E') passed by the Divisional Superintendent, respondent No. 3, removing him from service on the report dated 20th March, 1962 (copy annexure Rule 3) submitted by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Inquiry Officer and so also the orders passed by the Chief Electrical Engineer, respondent No. 2 and the General Manager, respondent No. 1 on appeal and revision against the said order of his removal from service.

(2.) The petitioner was a confirmed Mistry in the Railway Workshop, Kalka and had been in service of the Northern Railway for 11 years, when respondent No. 3 on receipt of a report from the Vigilance Inspector served him with a charge-sheet under Rule 1708(ii) read with 1706(ii) of the Indian Railways Establishment Code, Volume I (annexure 'A'). He is said to have misappropriated two drums of 45 gallons each of kerosene oil in the month of January, 1961 and one cabin fan in February, 1961. He as desired, submitted his reply to the charge-sheet in time (Annexure 'E'). The Assistant Electrical Engineer, respondent No. 4, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer under the rules who after recording the evidence led by the department and the petitioner found that a cabin fan a drum of 45 gallons of kerosene oil P.L. 88 had been misappropriated by the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 after considering the petitioner's written defence in reply to the charge-sheet and the report of the Inquiry Officer came to the provisional decision that the petitioner should be removed from service. Consequently the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 16th April, 1962, (Annexure 'C'). The petitioner submitted his reply (annexure 'D') to the said cause notice. Respondent No. 3 as is evident from annexure R-6, after considering the charge-sheet, the petitioner's defence, the Inquiry Officer's proceedings and findings, show cause notice and reply to the show cause notice directed that the petitioner should be removed from service and this order was communicated to the petitioner in due course. His appeal and revision against the said order were dismissed by respondents Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. The order of the appellate authority has not been produced. The order an the revision petition (annexure R-10), however, is on the record.

(3.) The petitioner alleged that the orders of his removal from service based on the enquiry of the charge sheet served in him were illegal, ultra vires, unjust and without jurisdiction amongst others on the grounds that the report of the Inquiry Officer was largely based on inadmissible evidence and that the Inquiry Officer failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by him in defence to the charges. His main grievance was that the order removing him from service (Annexure 'E') was not a speaking order and further that all the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 simply dittoed the report of the Inquiry Officer without going into the evidence themselves.