RAMCHANDRA SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, on agreement amongst the counsel for the parties, have been heard together, as the main point involved in all the cases is the same. We, accordingly, propose to dispose four cases by one common judgment, however, indicating the facts of each case separately wherever necessary.

(2.) The petitioner in CWJC No. 1735 of 1975 was, at the relevant time, working as a Traveling Ticket Examiner (herein-after referred to, for the sake of brevity, as T.T.E.) under Chakradharpur Division of the South Eastern Railway and posted at Rourkela, On the 16th July 1975, while the petitioner was on duty as T.T.E. I/C of a two tier coach, No. 5902, of 457 Up from Rourkela Railway Station, the Vigilance Branch of the Railway Administration detected that the petitioner had failed to man the coach from Rourkela and entered the same at Rajgangpur Railway Station. As many as 14 passengers were found travelling in the said coach without tickets. On the following day, that is, on the 17th. July, 1975, while the petitioner was conducting the downward journey of the said train and was in charge of the same coach, it was found by the said Vigilance Branch that the petitioner had failed to collect reservation fees from 22 passengers on a false plea that he had no folios in his 'E.F.T. Book'. The Vigilance Branch, accordingly, made a report to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Chakradharpur on the 26th July, 1975 stating the above facts of serious misconduct, negligence and deraliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. On receipt of the said report, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent (respondent No. 4) purported to pass an order under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), and, on a consideration of the facts an the circumstances obtaining against the petitioner, held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry into the case under the normal rules and procedure as embodied in the Rules for various reasons mentioned in the order dated the 26th July, 1975, a copy of which has been made Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway. Taking this view, the said respondent, acting as the disciplinary authority and exercising the powers under the aforesaid provision of Rule 14, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner is said to have learnt of this order from a notice pasted on the wall of his quarter. A copy of the said notice is Annexure '1' to this writ application.

(3.) The facts of the other three writ applications, namely, CWJC Nos. 48, 44 and 45 of 1975, are slightly different. All the three petitioners in these write applications were working, during the relevant period, at Gaya Junction Railway Station as Class III railway servants. An F.I.R. was lodged by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Gaya (respondent No. 3) with the Gaya Government Railway Police Station against all the three petitioners, along with several others, alleging, inter alia, that, on the 1st December, 1974, the petitioners, along with their associates, wrongfully confined respondent No. 3 and some other officers, including the Head Train Examiner of Gaya Junction Railway Station, and assaulted him. A copy of the said F.I.R. is Annexure T to the writ applications. It appears that the matter was reported to the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore (respondent No. 2). The Divisional Superintendent, on receipt of the aforesaid report of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, purporting to act under the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 14(ii) of the Rules, took a view that it was not reasonably practicable hold an inquiry in the manner provided for in the Rules. Thereupon he passed an order of removal of all the three petitioners by his order, dated the 2nd December, 1974. A copy of the said composite order is Annexure '2' to CWJC Nos. 43 and 45 of 1975 and Annexure '3' to CWJG No. 44 of 1975.