SUKHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Sukbai, ex washout coolie, Loco-shed, Kotah for the issue of writ of Mandamus or any other proper writ or directive which might be considered feasible to the Union of India, General Manager Western Railway, Bombay Churchgate and Mr. I. T. Carter, District Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Gangapur city to set aside the order of his removal from service, issued by the General Manager, Western Railway under his Order No. F/2, dated 30-8-1951. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as under.

(2.) THE patitioner was appointed in Loco Department of B. B. & C. I. , Railway (now Western Rail-way) in the year 1923. On 1-1-1942, on change of the B. B. & C. I. Company managed into a State-managed Railway, the petitioner by virtue of option, given to him by the District Loco and Carriage Superintendent, Gangapur in the name of the General Manager of the said Railway, became a member of the State managed Railway -- Subordinate staff (Non-Gazetted) Service. While employed at Kotah Loco-shed, he occupied a railway quarter No. L/309/g. He was asked to vacate that quarter by the Fitter Incharge Kotah on 1-4-1951 who served him with a notice, stating therein that be would be fined if he did not vacate the quarter and he was asked to reply to this notice within three days. THE petitioner replied to this notice on 4-3-1951 saying that he found the quarter lying vacant and so he occupied it. On 16-4-1951, the District Mechanical Engineer made an order on the basis of notice of the Fitter in charge and the petitioner's reply that if the petitioner did not vacate the quarter by 25-4-1951, he would be charge-sheeted. He was also given fifteen days' leave on 22-4-1951 in order to find out an alternative accommodation. Upto 9-5-1951, how-ever, the petitioner did not vacate the quarter and the Fitter in charge, Kotah informed the District Mechanical Engineer that the quarter was not vacated. On this letter an order was made by the District Mechanical Engineer that the petitioner should be served with a charge-sheet in accordance with Appendix 'b' for insubordination. That charge-sheet was drawn up on the 17/18th May, 1951 ard it was received by the petitioner on 19-5-1951. THE petitioner replied to this charge-sheet saying that it was under the verbal orders of the District Mechanical Engineer that he occupied the quarter. He did not say anything as to whether he intended to vacate the quarter or not. On 21-6-1951, the District Mechanical Engineer sent a letter to the Fitter in charge, Kotah, asking him if the petitioner had vacated the quarter or not. In another letter dated 4-7-1951, the District Mechanical Engineer informed the Fitter in charge that it was wrong to say that he had given any verbal permission to the petitioner to "occupy the quarter. On 8-7-1951, the petitioner made an ap- plication that he might be permitted to continue for sometime more. He was given time to vacate the quarter upto 10-7-1951. He, however, did not vacate the quarter on the said date. On 19-7-1951, therefore, provisional decision was reached that the petitioner be removed from service and this order was served on the petitioner oa 4-8-1951. THE petitioner replied to this provisional decision on 9-8-1951 and said that he declined to accept the decision. On 30-8-1951, therefore, order was passed that with effect from 11-10-1951, the petitioner be removed from service. After giving notices under Section 80, Civil P. C,, dated the 24th September and 16th October, 1951, the petitioner presented the present petition for writ and direction as mentioned above.

(3.) THE petition is dismissed, but looking to the circumstances of the petitioner as also to some what severe penalty which has been imposed upon him, we order that parties shall bear their own costs. .