CHHATAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Shri Chhatar singh who was an Assistant Engineer in the Northern Railway and by it he seeks to challenge the order of his removal from service (Ex. 12) purporting to have been passed by the President in exercise of his powers under Article 311 (2) (c) of the constitution of India after dispensing with the holding of an enquiry against the petitioner. The case set up by the petitioner in his writ petition is briefly this:

(2.) THE petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the Civil Engineering Department of the Northern Railway and was posted at Jodhpur during the year 1965. On 9-91965, he was asked by the Divisional Engineer (East), Northern Railway, Jodhpur at about 5-00 P. M. to proceed to Banner immediately by the first available train leaving Jodhpur at 10. 25 P. M. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner says, he booked his carriage but, as his wife suddenly fell ill on account of a nervous break down, he had to stay with her as, according to him, there was no adult member who could attend on his wife. The petitioner goes on to say that on account of this unforeseen difficulty developing in his path he informed the Divisional Engineer on phone about the serious illness of his wife and conveyed to him that it would not be possible for the petitioner to leave for Banner that night, but he would go there the following morning. The petitioner submits that on the morning of 10-9-05, as the condition of his wife had not improved, he applied for four days' casual leave to the Divisional engineer. The Divisional Engineer, however, declined to sanction the leave and he conveyed to the petitioner, that he had been booked off duty by the Divisional superintendent. He also received a letter from the Divisional Superintendent intimating him that for disobeying orders he had been put off duty. On 13-9-65, the petitioner received an order of the General Manager, Northern Railway, that he had been put under suspension from 10-9-65. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him in respect of the petitioner's having failed to carry out the orders given to him by the Divisional Engineer on 9-9-65 to proceed to Banner immediately. The petitioner submitted his reply and asked for copies of some documents. While the enquiry proceedings were continuing against the petitioner, he received the order (Ex. 12) dated 15-1-66 purporting to have been passed by the President that he had been removed from service, with effect from 22-1-66. The petitioner challenges the validity of this order principally on the following three grounds:-

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. It is denied by them that it was necessary under the law to put up the case of the petitioner to the president himself, nor was it necessary that the President should have been personally satisfied of the necessity of the action. They further denied that the action taken against the petitioner was mala fide. It is urged that the order has been issued in the name of the President and it was properly authenticated by an officer who was empowered to authenticate the orders of the President. The order they claim thus fully conformed to the requirements of Article 77 of the constitution. As such it is urged that it is not open to the petitioner to contend that this was not an order passed by the President. The respondents further submit that the case was dealt with according to the rules of business of the Government of India and as all matters relating to Railways have been allocated to the Railway ministry which has been designated as the Railway Board, the case could be finally disposed of by the Minister of Railways. It is stated that the case was, in fact, submitted to the Minister for Railways who was personally satisfied that it was not expedient in the interest of the security of the State to hold the enquiry against the petitioner. It is thus submitted that the satisfaction of the competent authority, that is, the Minister incharge was sufficient for the purposes of Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution and the order being in proper form its validity cannot be questioned. It is denied that the facts and circumstances disclosed in the petitioner's case and which necessitated the dispensing with the formal disciplinary enquiry had no connection with the security of the State. It is stated that the territory of India was under invasion from Pakistan during september, 1965, and as a result of enemy action at Gadra Road one Shri Bansal, assistant Engineer (West) had received injuries and it was, therefore, imperative to have another Assistant Engineer in his place to supervise all engineer work in connection with the damage caused by enemy action and saboteurs. Shri Chhattar singh who was available at Jodhpur was, therefore, immediately asked to leave for barmer by the first available train, but on the last minute he refused to go on the plea of his wife's sickness. It was felt by the respondents that if during an emergency of a magnitude that was faced by the country the disobedience of orders on the part of officers were tolerated, then the same was bound to shake the morale of the subordinate staff working under them. It is submitted that the enquiry into the case of the petitioner would have involved a detailed investigation about bombardment of the trains and other damage caused to the rolling stock as a result of enemy action. Going into the details would not according to the respondents, have been in the interest of the security of the State. Lastly it is urged that the decision of the President or for that matter that of the competent authority was not justiciable, as the satisfaction that is contemplated under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution is not made subject to any condition.