GANGADHAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit, for declaration that his removal from service was wrongful, illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and that he still continued to be in service, and for recovery of his salary from the date of dismissal, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chapra. The plaintiff was appointed as Assistant Station Master in July, 1949 and posted at Tirki Railway station in the district of Gonda. At the time when the incident which resulted in his removal happened, he was posted as Assistant Station Master at Barauni Junction railway station on the North Eastern Railway. At the relevant period, he was the Branch Secretary of the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, Samastipur Branch, a legal body having a legal existence under the Trade Unions Act of 1926 and duly recognised by the railway management. It is alleged that on the 9th of June, 1956, the plaintiff forced entry in the office room of the District Mechanical Engineer, Sonepore, without his permission and, on objection being raised by the District Mechanical Engineer, and his refusal to discuss any matter with him, the plaintiff became impertinent and insulted and abused him by calling him 'rouge' and 'scoundrel'. It appears that on the 25th of July, 1956, a charge-sheet of serious misconduct was drawn up against the plaintiff stating the incident referred to above and he was called upon to show cause by written explanation within seven days from the date of the receipt of the same. The charge-sheet was received by the plaintiff on the 28th of July, 1956, and on the 2nd of August, 1956, he sent his reply with regard to the charge-sheet challenging the drawing up of the same against him as Assistant Station Master of Barauni Junction railway station and stating that, if the administration had got any complaint against the branch Secretary of the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, Samastipur Branch, the matter may be reported to the General Secretary of the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union. This latter (sic) is marked Ext. G/I in the case. On the 7th of August, 1956, the District Traffic Superintendent of the North Eastern Railway, Sonepore, wrote a letter (Ext. G) to the plaintiff that, as he had not submitted his defence to the charge referred to above, it was presumed that he had no explanation to offer, and intimating that the departmental confronted enquiry by District Officers in connection with the above charge, would be held at Muzaffarpur in the office of the Regional Superintendent on the 16th August, 1956 and the 17th of August 1956. He was also informed that in order to allow him all reasonable facilities to defend himself in the enquiry, he might elect bis defence Counsel. On the 10th of August, 1956, the plaintiff, by a letter Ext. G/4, nominated Sri Prabhat Biswas, Vice-President of the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, as his defence Counsel and prayed for time till after the 18th August, 1956, as the said nominated Counsel was out of station. Time was, however, not granted and the enquiry was to be held on the 16th of August, 1956. On that date, the plaintiff again prayed for adjournment on account of the absence of his Counsel. Tbe enquiry was, therefore, postponed to the 22nd and 23rd of August, 1956, in order to enable the plaintiff to arrange the attendance of his Counsel. The next sitting of the enquiry committee was, therefore, held at Muzaffarpur on tbe 22nd of August, 1956, and the plaintiff appeared with his Counsel Sri Biswas. On that date, the plaintiff's Counsel wanted the enquiry committee to clarify whether the plaintiff was being prosecuted in his capacity as Assistant Station Master and as an employee of the railway administration or as an 'Union' official. The committee explained to him that, so far as the District Traffic Superintendent of Sonepore was concerned, the position appeared to be quite clear from the charge-sheet itself wherein the plaintiff was designated as Assistant Station. Master, The defence raised by his Counsel was that it was irregular to proceed with the enquiry on the assumption that the plaintiff was being prosecuted as an Assistant Station Master; that complaint should have been brought against the Secretary of the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, Samastipur Branch and the view that the plaintiff was involved as an Assistant Station Master militated against his functions as an Union Official, and that he had no objection to participate in the proceedings in case the status of the plaintiff as an office-bearer of the Union vis-a-vis the charge-sheet was accepted and the enquiry committee agreed to proceed on that basis. The committee, for certain reasons, however, was not in a position to have piecemeal enquiry and asked the plaintiff and his Counsel to co-operate with them in finding out whether the plaintiff had committed the acts complained against him. The plaintiff and his Counsel, however, made it clear to the enquiry committee that they would not associate themselves with the committee's proceedings if the enquiry was to be held on the basis of the plaintiff being treated as a railway servant and they walked out and did not take part in the proceedings. The committee, therefore, had to proceed ex parte and ultimately it came to a finding that the plaintiff, a railway servant, by becoming a member of any association or Union, did not cease to be a railway employee and that from the evidence on record the charges levelled against him were established and he had committed acts of serious misconduct which were subversive of discipline. The District Traffic Superintendent, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry committee, came to the conclusion that the charges had been conclusively proved and proposed to remove the plaintiff from service and to give him an opportunity to submit further explanation, which was to foe taken into consideration before passing final orders.

(2.) In view of the findings referred to above, a notice of the proposed punishment was given to the plaintiff requiring him to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service should not be inflicted on him, and it was pointed out in that notice that any representation that he would make in this connection would be taken into consideration before passing the final order. This notice was duly received by the plaintiff, as appears from Ext. 3/a, and he filed his show clause petition (Ext. H). In that show-cause petition, besides urging the point of the illegality of the proceedings against him as an Assistant Station Master while he, according to him, had gone to the District Mechanical Engineer in his capacity as the Branch Secretary of the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, he claimed to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the enquiry committee and to adduce evidence in support of his defence. He also made a reference to the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined by that committee and pressed for production of the original interview Register. The District Traffic Superintendent, after considering the show cause petition came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was given all reasonable facilities for his defence by the enquiry committee and he could not, therefore, consider it desirable to re-open the case afresh. He, therefore, passed an order removing the plaintiff from service with immediate effect. The plaintiff, thereafter, preferred an appeal against the order of his removal before the Regional Superintendent who allowed the prayer of the plaintiff for the production of the original interview Register and for the examination of Shri B. C. Bagchi, Chief Clerk. The original Interview Register was, accordingly, produced and Shri B. C. Bagchi, Chief Clerk was duly examined and cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The Regional Superintendent, however, could not find any valid reason to recall the witnesses who were examined by the enquiry committee over again and reopen the enquiry, inasmuch as, according to him, sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to substantiate his defence. On a consideration of the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the original Interview Register and the evidence of Sri B. C. Bagchi and other materials on the record, the appellate authority affirmed the order of the District Traffic Superintendent removing the plaintiff from service.

(3.) The plaintiff, therefore, after giving notice to the prescribed authorities under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, instituted the suit for the reliefs stated above, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge.