UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARA CHAND

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. 85/- 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 secs. 324 and 323/341 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. THE court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate first class, Ajmer (East) tried the case and convicted him under sec. 324 read with sec. 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 3 March, 1966 (Exhibit A/6 ). This order was served upon him on 4 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 service special procedure provided in R. 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, R. 17l9 (i) of the Rule has been rightly applied to the respondent by the punishing authority.

(3.) THERE is no denying the fact that there is nothing in the order to indicate that the penalty had been imposed on the ground of conduct of the respondent which led to his conviction or that the Disciplinary Authority had taken into consideration the circumstances of the case.