RAMLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil regular second appeal by the plaintiff Ramlal in a suit for declaration which has been dismissed by both courts below.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The plaintiff was admittedly a Watchman in the service of the Western Railway at the time with which we are concerned, that is, on the 24th February, 1953. He was posted at the Gangapur Railway Station of the said Railway. In the course of his duties on the 24th February, 1953, he acted as an escort (from the eastern side) to the 848 Up Goods Train leaving Agra East Bank for the Bayana Railway Station. This train left Idgah at 9. 25 p. m. on that night, and wagon No. 18714 on this train was checked and found in order at the time of the departure of the train from Idgah Station. After the train had reached the Fatehpur Sikri Railway Station, which was the next stoppage for this train, it was found that the doors of the aforesaid wagon had been opened on the eastern side and there was a shortage of four packages, two of soap, one of Haldi and the fourth one of Gulal. The plaintiff was suspected of having been negligent in the discharge of his duties as Watchman, and consequently he was served with a charge-sheet Ex. 6 on the I cth May, 1953. The plaintiff submitted his explanation Ex. A6 to this charge-sheet on the 4th May 1953 in which he mentioned a number of reasons why it was not possible for him to have detected the incident in question, and he maintained that he had been fully alert to his duties, and that the truth of his submission be verified, if necessary, from the Guard of the said train. It is remarkable that on the 26th May, 1953, the plaintiff submitted an application to the Watch and Ward superintendent in which he tried to explain at length how the theft might have occurred and how he was not able to detect the same at the proper time and eventually concluded his application in the following manner:

(3.) THE main grounds on which the plaintiff attacked the order of his removal and which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are (1) that the charge-sheet was vague and not specific, and that he being an illiterate person, it was not explained to him; and (2) that no inquiry into the allegations made against him had at all been made by the department and yet a second show cause notice had been given to him and he was eventually removed from service and thus no reasonable opportunity had been afforded to him for his defence.