PURSHOTTAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner seeks to quash the order (Ex. 5) dated May 18, 1979 passed by the Divisional Engineer (E), Northern Railway, Jodhpur, by which, he was removed from service with effect from June 8, 1979.

(2.) A case under sec. 3 of the R. P. (U. P.) Act, 1966 was registered against the petitioner by the Railway Protection Force, Sujangarh. He was implicated as a co-accused and challaned. After trial, he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, (Railway), Bikaner vide his judgment dated November 18, 1978 and sentenced to one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Vide Memorandum (Ex. 3) dated February 13, 1979, he was asked to show cause as to why be should not be removed from service under r. 14 (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rules' hereafter ). He submitted his reply explaining the whole position. Thereafter, by his order (Ex. 5) dated May 18, 1979, the Divisional Engineer (E) Northern Railway, Jodhpur removed him from service The copy of the aforesaid order was served on the petitioner on June 8. 1979. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he has filed this writ petition for quashing it.

(3.) IN L. Hirday Narain vs. I. T. O. , Bareilly (1) an order was made under sec. 31 of the INcome Tax Act, which was not appealable, but against that revision could be preferred before the Commissioner, INcome Tax. The person against whom, the order was passed, moved a petition before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court entertained that petition. IN those facts, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under : "we are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for an order correcting the order of the INcome-Tax Officer under sec. 35, but was not moved, the High Court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable the petition, which was entertained and was heard on the merits. "