UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal out of a suit for declaring an order for the removal of the plaintiff-respondent from service as null and void on account of the contravention of the principles of natural justice in the holding of the departmental inquiry culminating in the order of removal.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent was a member of the Railway Protection Force and was under the control of the Security Officer, Western Railway, Ajmer. At the relevant time he was posted at Abu Road. He was seen carrying two kilograms of coal which was the property of the Railway. He was served with a charge sheet and departmental proceedings were initiated against him and finally he was visited with penalty of removal from service by the Security Officer. He went up in appeal, but without any success. He then served a notice under sec. 80 Civil Procedure Code on the Union of India and on 2-3-67 instituted the suit in the court of Munsif, Ajmer City (East ). THE plaint was later on amended with the permission of the court and an amended plaint was filed on 16-10-69. THE order of the removal was challenged on a number of grounds, but it is not relevant to make any reference to all of them except the one ground that the Inquiry Officer did not afford an opportunity to the plaintiff Government servant to adduce oral evidence to rebut the departmental evidence.

(3.) IN M. P. S. R. T. Corporation vs. INdustrial Court, M. P. INdore (lo), the learned Judges observed : - "so far as the first point is concerned, the fact is that on the date of the enquiry the respondent No. 3 was asked the question as to whether he wanted to produce defence witnesses. He stated that the enquiry should be conducted at the site where the occurrence took place. This was taken by the INquiry Officer as meaning that he did not want to give any evidence. The Labour Court has not read this answer in that sense. The Labour Court is of opinion that by this answer the respondent No. 3 wanted to say that he might be able to produce evidence if the enquiry was conducted at the site and that, therefore, the possibility of his producing evidence cannot be ruled out. We are unable to say that this interpretation of the Labour Court is necessarily wrong. It should have been made clear to him that he should produce evidence there if he so liked. On the second point also we have seen the order of the officer conducting the domestic enquiry. The order is very short and does not give any reason for holding that the charges had been proved. The INquiry Officer has not even mentioned the names of witnesses or the nature of evidence that was produced before him on the basis of which he found the charges proved. We are, therefore, unable to hold that this part of the decision of the Labour Court was without jurisdiction or patently wrong in law. "