RAM SUBHAG Vs. UNION OR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit giving rise to this appeal for declaration that Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the plaint are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction as they were passed without complying with the principles of natural justice and, as such, are void and inoperative. A further declaration that the plaintiff continued to be in service was prayed for. The last prayer was that the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering with the discharge of the plaintiff's duty as usual. The suit was decreed by the trial court but on appeal the same has been dismissed. Thereafter this second appeal has been filed which was listed for hearing before a learned single Judge. As the points involved in the case were of significance, the appeal was directed to be placed before a Division Bench by order, dated 30-11-1984.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff was appointed Khalasi in the Eastern Railway sometime in the year 1957. on 19-2-1977, while he was posted at Dehri-on-Sone, he received letter No. CS/174/77, dated 9-2-1977 under the signature of defendant No. 4. This letter/notice is Annexure'A'to the plaint. It states, inter alia, that on 31-1-1977 the plaintiff turned up at about 8 hours and started forcing I. O. W. to mark him present on 29-1-1977 although he had turned up late by1 hours on that day. It was further stated in the notice that the plaintiff even assaulted Shri M. S. Guha. Works Mistri and Munshi Sharma, Carpenter. According to the notice, in the circumstance, it was not desirable to retain the plaintiff in service and it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry in the manner as provided in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') and, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 14(ii) of the said Rules, defendant 1X0. 4, namely, Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway removed him from service with effect from 12-2-1977. The plaintiff says that the allegations made against him in the notice (Annexure A to the plaint) were incorrect and false. According to him, facts were entirely different which he narrated in the plaint. But for the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to mention them. Against the order removing the plaintiff from service, he filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer, defendant No. 3, but the appeal was also illegally dismissed by the order which has been marked as Annexure 'B' to the plaint. It is said that the plaintiff filed an appeal before the General Manager, Eastern Railway (defendant No. 2) but the same has not been disposed of and the plaintiff was not expecting any relief from him. In the circumstances, a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the defendants but that also did not yield any result and, as such, the suit giving rise to this appeal was filed.

(3.) The defence, inter alia, was non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order removing the plaintiff from service was also sought to be justified on facts and the facts mentioned in the notice were reiterated. It was also said that past record of the plaintiff indicated that he was a notorious man by nature and it was not possible to hold enquiry as the plaintiff had terrified all the witnesses. Under the circumstance, it was said that the plaintiff was removed under Rule 14(ii) of the Rules.