UNION OF INDIA Vs. B K DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by him in the Court of Munsiff, Ajmer City (West), Ajmer on 22-11-1963 praying that a declaration may be granted in his favour that the order of Additional Commercial Superintendent (East), Western Railway, Ajmer dated 23-1-1961 marked Ex. A. 28. is void, illegal and ultra-vires and the plaintiff should be deemed to continue in service of the Westren Railway. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff but on appeal by the plaintiff it has been decreed. Hence the Union of Indian has come in appeal to this Court.

(2.) THE facts necessary for decision of the points canvassed before me lie within a narrow compass and may be stated as below : THE plaintiff who was working as Ticket Collector on 23-9-1959 at Bhuj (which for the sake of brevity has been described as BVJ), is alleged to have received Rs. 17. 50 paisa from 35 Third class passengers for false reservation in Bhuj-Ahmeda-bad through coach of Train No. 247-Up-Ex-BVJ-ADI. It was further alleged that he gave Rs. 2/- out of the said amount to Tolaram, Assistant Booking Clerk to getting reservation labels prepared. However, when it was revealed before the departure of the train on complaint by some passengers that the reservation was a bogus one, the plaintiff is alleged to have returned the amount after collecting back Rs. 2/-from Tolaram to the passengers concerned. It is also the case of the Railway that the plaintiff in collusion with one A. P. Jain Assistant Station Master, Bhuj put reservation labels on the coach. A complaint having been made in this connection by the Secretary of the Transport Users Association, Bhuj, the plaintiff was charge sheeted and after having got an enquiry in matter the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Western Railway, Ajmer removed the petitioner from service by the order Ex. A. 28. THE plaintiff's case is that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to him to defend himself against the charges as envisaged under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India and that there is no evidence against him to substantiate the charges. THE defendant, on the other hand, has justified the impugned order on the ground that it had been passed after following the procedure prescribed by law and that the charges were established against the plaintiff.

(3.) THE first two Supreme Court cases have been noticed by Bhargava J. , and he has observed that in State of Madras vs. Srinivasan (2) the Government had carefully considered the explanation submitted by the accused officer and after giving the summary of the advice given by the P. S. G. had indicated that it agreed with it. As to the second case he has rightly observed that it does not relate to the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, but concerns the order passed before the show cause notice was issued, and in that case the notice expressly stated that the Chief Commercial Superintendent agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet had been established and so the court came to the conclusion that Rule 1713 of the Railway Servants Conduct and Disciplinary Rules had been substantially complied with.