RAMANAND Vs. DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Ramanand under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his order of reduction in rank under circumstances presently to be mentioned.

(2.) THE petitioner held the post of a Loco Foreman on the Northern Railway. He was posted at Delhi Serai Rohilla Railway Station on the 35th July, 1957. On the lastmentioned date, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, served him with a charge-sheet in connection with certain complaints arising against him. The petitioner repudiated the charges, but his explanation was not considered satisfactory, and an enquiry was ordered against him by the said officer. Shri K. N. Mathur, an Assistant Mechanical Engineer was appointed Enquiry officer. The enquiry was held from the 9th November, 1957, to the nth March, 1958. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him, except for a part of charge No. 2 to which we shall refer at the proper place, and was of the opinion that the petitioner was unsuitable for holding the charge of the responsible post of a loco foreman and submitted his report to the divisional Mechanical Engineer. The latter then issued a notice to the petitioner on the 29th April, 1958, to show cause why he should not be reduced to the post of a charge-man on a salary of rs. 350/- P. M. for a period of two years without affecting his future increments and seniority at restoration. The petitioner submitted his objections, which were overruled, and by an order dated the 12th September, 1958, he was awarded the punishment mentioned above. Against that order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Divisional Superintendent of the Northern Railway, Bikaner Division, Bikaner. This appeal was rejected on the 29th January, 1959. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up with the present writ application.

(3.) NOW, before we summarise the grounds of attack raised by the petitioner against the order of his reduction, we think it necessary to mention the charges which were raised against the petitioner by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer. These were as follows: -