UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. SHIV BABOO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Baboo Singh - the respondent - was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, State of UP. On retrenchment in the year 1954 he was absorbed in the Railway Department and was appointed as Clerk in the Mechanical Department on March 17, 1955. He was later promoted as Seniorcierk. Under the instructions of the Government of India, all the employees who were retrenched from service in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, State of UP. and later absorbed in the Railways were given advantage of their service to their credit in their earlier Department and the fixation of pay and increment, D. A. etc. was to be made accordingly, after taking into consideration the service rendered by the employees before being absorbed in the Railways.

(2.) THE case of the respondent since about fixation was pending, he met Sh. P. R. Seshan, Divisional Personnel Officer, Kota to expedite and finalise his case. The respondent, thereafter, complained to the Chief Personnel Officer, Church Gate, Bombay on October 4, 1972 that Sh. Seshan had demanded Rs. 500/- from him for finalisation and fixation of salary. This complaint of the respondent was taken seriously by the Railway Authorities. Sh. OP. Khanna, Vigilance Inspector, was required to make a preliminary enquiry for finding the truth. He recorded the statement of the respondent and submitted preliminary enquiry report to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer proposed to hold enquiry against the respondent under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Conduct) Rules, 1968. The respondent was served with a memorandum alongwith the charges. He was asked to give his written statement of his defence. He was also asked to intimate to the Enquiry Officer the name of a railway servant whom he wanted to act as his counsel.

(3.) SHRI B. L. Chaturvedi, A. M. E. , was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The respondent wanted Sh. G. L. Ajwani, an employee of the Railway, to be appointed as his counsel. The Enquiry Officer informed the respondent that the Rules governing the enquiry proceedings against the respondent did not permit Sh. G. J. Ajwani to be appointed as his counsel. The reason being that Sh. G. J. Ajwani was a counsel in nine other enquiries and the Rules of the Railway provided that no one could become a counsel for an employee of the Railway in more than two enquiries.