PRITAM LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Booking Clerk in the year 1953 in the Northern Railway after selection by the Railway Service Com -mission. In the year 1959 he was promoted as a Senior Booking Clerk and was confirmed in that cadre in the year 1960. A memorandum accompanied by a statement of allegations dated April 30, 1962 was served upon the petitioner for alleged misconduct and after an enquiry, the Assistant Traffic Superintendent (E), Jodhpur by his order dated October 12, 1965 imposed a penalty upon him of temporarily withholding increment for one year. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent which was dismissed on April 15, 1966. No appeal or revision was preferred by the petitioner thereafter. However, on August 18, 1966 the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur issued a notice (Ex. 3) to the petitioner calling upon him to Show cause why the enhanced penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon him. An enquiry was conducted in the matter but as the petitioner declined to participate in the said enquiry, the same was held ex -parte. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Divisional Superintendent by his order dated April 5, 1969 (Ex. 5) enhanced the penalty inflicted upon the petitioner and reduced him to the grade of a Booking Clerk for a period of two years affecting his future increments. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to the Chief Commercial Superintendent against the aforesaid enhancement, but he again issued a notice of enhancement of penalty to the petitioner, as in his view the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was still not sufficient. The Chief Commercial Superintendent by his order dated August 1, 1970 further enhanced the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by reducing him to the grade of a Booking Clerk for a period of three years, instead of two years, affecting his future increments. An appeal against the aforesaid order to the General Manager of the Northern Railway was also dismissed on August 9, 1971. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition in this Court.

(2.) THE only submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Divisional Superintendent and the Chief Commercial Superintendent were not competent to issue notices for the enhancement of penalty at the relevant time under Rule 1736 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (Vol. I) and, therefore, the orders regarding enhancement of penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Divisional Superintendent and the Chief Commercial Superintendent and all proceedings subsequent there to were invalid and void. Rule 1736, so far as is relevant for our present purpose, runs as under; -

(3.) THE writ petition is consequently allowed as indicated above and the orders of the Divisional Superintendent dated April 5, 1969, Chief Commercial Superintendent dated August 1, 1970 and the General Manager dated August 9, 1971 are accordingly quashed, as also the notices of enhancement of penalty issued by the Divisional Superintendent dated August 18, 1966 and by the Chief Commercial Superintendent dated September 26, 1969. The petitioner shall get his costs from the respondents.