SURAJNARAINSINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether removal of the plaintiff-appellant from his service was in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, in other words was he removed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority is the short but significant substantial question of law that falls for determination in this plaintiff's Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code), in a suit for declaration that the order of discharge of the plaintiff from service is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and that the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement with full salary and other benefits up to date till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) This appeal has got a chequered history. The suit was filed with me averments that plaintiff was Ticket Collector in Bihar Bakhtiarpur Light Railway Company Limited in the year 1949. In 1962, the said B.B. Light Rilway Company Limited merged in the Eastern Railways and he was appointed by the General Manager, in the service of Eastern Railways and the condition in respect of the employees was that the employees of the B.B. Light Railway Company Limited were re-appointed by the Eastern Railway in their respective capacity subject to qualifying the test and training. The plaintiff appeared before the Eastern Railway Service Commission, Calcutta and he was finally selected and on completion of the theoretical and practical training, he was posted at Patna Junction to work as Ticket Collector. In view of Rule 1702(2) (b) of Discipline and Appeal Rules for Non-Gazetted Rail Servants (enforced from Ist August, 1961, corrected and modified up to 30-9-1962, published from Eastern Railway Press, Calcutta, Page 6), General Manager was the appointing authority, but order of appointment was issued under the signature of Divisional Personal Officer, Eastern Railway. But he was removed from the service by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Danapur. It appears that certain charges, pertaining to the irregularities committed by the plaintiff-appellant in connection with realisation of the tickets from the passengers were levelled. The enquiry officer found charges proved and the plaintiff was removed from services by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Danapur, by his letter dated 4th December, 1964.

(3.) Thereafter the plaintiff preferred a Departmental Appeal before the Divisional Superintendent, Danapur (Defendant No. 2) but the same failed and his Revision before the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, also met the same fate. Ultimately the application for review was moved on Ist October, 1965 before the General Manager for review of the said order but the same also did not succeed. Thereafter the present suit was filed.