UNION OF INDIA Vs. TERACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this second appeal by the defendant Union of India are these. The respondent plaintiff was appointed as a Khalasi on 29 May, 1947 in Loco Workshop, Western Railways, Ajmer and was confirmed as such in 1963 He was drawing Rs. 65/ - per month as pay and Rs. 47/ - per month as Dearness Allowance and also Rs. 7.50 as house rent. He alleged that he had been falsely implicated in a case under sections 324 and 323/341 read with section 34 I.P.C. The court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate First Class, Ajmer (East) tried the case and convicted him under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ -. It is admitted case of the parties that on the basis of the said conviction he was removed from service on 3rd March, 1966 (Exhibit A/6). This order was served upon him on 4th March, 1966 (Exhibit A/1). The respondent challenged the validity of this order on several grounds one of which was that without considering the conduct of the respondent and the circumstances leading to his conviction the punishing authority pressed into a service special procedure provided in Rule 1719(i) of Discipline and Appeal Rules for Railway Servants other than those employed in the Railway Protection Force contained in Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I (which for the sake of brevity will hereinafter be called 'the Rules') and removed him from service. He prayed for declaration that the order of his removal was illegal and invalid. Prayer for a decree for arrears of salary was also made.

(2.) THE defendant appellant traversed all the grounds relied upon by the respondent in support of his plea of invalidity of the impugned order of removal and pleaded, inter alia, that from the facts and circumstances of the case it was clearly borne out that the punishing authority had taken into consideration the conduct of the respondent which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge and, therefore, rule 1719(i) of the Rules has been rightly applied to the respondent by the punishing authority. Both the lower courts have decided this point in the plaintiff's favour and since I, too, have felt that the matter can be disposed of on this point alone I do not think it necessary to make reference to other grounds relied upon by the plaintiff.

(3.) SECTION V and Section VI referred to in the opening sentence of this Rule prescribe the procedure to be followed in cases of imposition of major and minor penalties respectively. It is further clear that if Rule 1719 is pressed into service in a particular case the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Sections need not be followed. In the present case it was admittedly not followed. The only question, therefore, which calls for determination is whether condition No. (i) prescribed under Rule 1719 was fulfilled in the present case.