KALU PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are four petitioners in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They all have felt aggrieved by the order of termination of their service or order of removal as contained in annexure 1 series. Although in the writ petition several other questions were raised and other remedies with regard to certain incidental matters were claimed, Mr. Ras Bihari Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners has not chosen to press the challenge made to annexure 3 series or other incidental orders because if annexure 1 series are held to be valid in law, the other reliefs sought by the petitioners would automatically be rejected. On the contrary, if the petitioners' challenge to the order of removal as contained in annexure 1 series is held to be illegal be and invalid the petitioners would be entitled to others ancillary and consequential reliefs which the petitioners have prayed for.

(2.) The only point for consideration in this case is as to whether order of removal as contained in annexure 1 series can be upheld as being in accordance with law or otherwise. The point involved is an interpretation of Rule 14(11) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the non-holding of a regular enquiry as envisaged in the aforementioned rule vitiates the entire proceeding.

(3.) In view of the settled principle of law governing such cases as reported in a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Virendra Prasad Mishra v. The Union of India and Ors. 1982 B.B.C.J. 87 and some earlier Bench decision, which it is not necessary for us to refer to, we may straightway proceed to examine the validity/legality of the impugned order of removal of the petitioners from service in view of the Rule 14(ii) of the Rules. The aforementioned rule envisages that-- * * * * *