SHYAMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-8-71 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, by which he, reversing the judgment and decree of the original court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit challenging the order of the Railway Board reducing the plaintiff-appellant to the lower time-scale of the post for period of five years.

(2.) LEKHRAM Saini was a senior travelling ticket examiner at the relevant time in the grade of Rs. 150-240 drawing Rs. 212/- per month and his salary in the Western Railway, posted at Bandikui. He was charge-sheeted for under-charging a marriage party and for negligence of duty by the Railway Administration. On inquiry he was found to be negligent in discharge of his duty but the charge of under charging the marriage party was not found proved The General Manager did not agree with the result of this inquiry and ordered a fresh inquiry against him. There was accordingly a second inquiry but it also brought the same result, that is, Shri Saini was found guilty of negligence of duty only. The General Manager of the Western Railway however, on scrutiny of the evidence and the findings, held him guilty on both the counts and Shri LEKHRAM Saini was eventually removed from service on 15 1-66. This order was challenged by him in a writ petition in this court. By its order dated 27-10-67 this court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of removal. While agreeing with the finding that the plaintiff was guilty on the charge of negligence of duty only, the case was sent back to Railway Administration with the direction that after complying with the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution, the Administration would reconsider the case for imposing an appropriate penalty on the delinquent. In pursuance of this order, the General Manager on 9th February, 1968 provisionally came to conclusion that Shri LEKHRAM Saini be reduced to next lower grade of T. T. E. of Rs 130-212 (A) and be fixed on Rs. 175/- per month on the charge of negligence of duty. The plaintiff was served with a show cause notice and advised to file his representation against the proposed action. Mr. Saini submitted his representation and the General Manager after having considered the defence taken up by him reduced him permanently to next lower grade of Rs. 130-212 (A) and fixed him at Rs. 175/-per month. An appeal was taken against this order by Mr. Saini to the Railway Board. By its order dated 2-6-69 the Railway Board partially allowed the appeal and held on the material available on record that findings of the disciplinary authority were correct. The penalty of reducing Mr. Saini to the next lower grade of Rs. 130-212 and fixing him at Rs. 175/- was maintained but it was ordered that this reduction shall remain for a period of five years from the date it has taken effect and this period of reduction shall not operate to postpone further increments on his restoration to his original grade.

(3.) NOW coming to the order of the Railway Board it can hardly be urged on behalf of the appellant that it did not consider the appeal preferred by Mr. Saini. The Railway Board has broadly stated in its order that (a) the procedure laid down in the rules has been complied with in this case; (b) the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is warranted by the evidence on record; and (c) the penalty of reduction of the appellant by the General Manager is merited but in view of the general policy to impose a penalty of reduction invariably for a specified period the General Manager should have specified the period of reduction. These findings clearly indicate that the Railway Board considered the case of Mr. Saini in all its aspects. It even granted relief to him in modifying the penalty of reduction by specifying the period to five years. Under the circumstances of the case it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the order is not a speaking order. These arguments were raised before the lower appellate court as well and in my opinion it was right in repelling them.