RAM KHILARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 29 writ petitions arise in somewhat similar circumstances and, therefore, it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions were employed in different capacities at various places in Rajasthan in the Indian Railways and they were removed from service as a sequel to the All India Strike of Railwaymen, which took place in May, 1974. It is common ground that the Central Government, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it under Rule 118 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 prohibited any strike in the Railway Service in India in connection with any industrial dispute for a period of six months with effect from November 26, 1973. Several Unions representing railway employees gave notices of an All India Strike of employees working on Indian Railways, which was to take effect from May 8, 1974, to ventilate the grievances of the railway employees, in respect of various matters relating to their service conditions. As the attempted negotiations failed, the strike took place as contemplated. The Disciplinary Authority concerned, in the case of each one of the petitioners, waived the holding of a disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rules 9 to 13 of the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by passing an order under Clause (ii) of Rule 14 and orders of dismissal or removal were passed by the concerned Disciplinary Authority, separately in the case of each one of the petitioners. The petitioners have now challenged in these writ petitions the validity of the aforesaid orders of their removal or dismissal from service and have alleged that the termination of their service was illegal and arbitrary and was brought about in a mechanical manner, with the sole intention to victimise them. It has further been alleged that although some of the railway employees, who were also dismissed by the Disciplinary Authorities concerned in the same manner as the petitioners, have since then been taken back in service and the orders of their dismissal were withdrawn, yet the petitioners were not given similar treatment and that the petitioners only were picked up and sacked amongst striking railway employees.

(3.) The Railway Administration has stated in Its replies that an unprecedented and grave situation was brought into existence largely affecting the economy of the country, as the movement of goods traffic including food-stuffs was brought to a stand-still, on account of the illegal strike resorted to by the railway employees on an All India basis and that the petitioners played a leading role in organising the said strike and in preventing loyal staff from attending to their normal duties, by exercising coercive pressure upon them. It is alleged that the petitioners not only resorted to illegal strike by absenting themselves from their duties, but they exhorted the railway staff to participate in the illegal strike and indulged in aggressive propoganda for that purpose and threatened the loyal staff of dire consequences if they did not join the strike and thus committed serious misconduct. It is also alleged that the railway employees and their leaders were at the relevant time in a turbulent mood and no loyal employee could dare to give evidence against the petitioners for fear of their lives or of severe bodily injury and as such it was not possible to hold disciplinary enquiries in accordance with the provisions of the Rules against the erring workmen and, therefore, proceedings under Clause (ii) of Rule 14 were initiated against the petitioners. It is alleged that the Disciplinary Authorities concerned considered the relevant material which was placed before them and satisfied themselves about the truth of the allegations made against the petitioners and after applying their mind proceeded to pass orders of removal or dismissal of the concerned employees and that speaking orders were passed in the case of each one of the petitioners. It is also submitted that no discrimination was practised and that individual cases were considered on merits while taking back the employees and the orders of re-instatement were passed on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. The Railway Administration has also submitted that a remedy by way of appeal was open to the petitioners which was duly availed of by them and that appeals were dismissed in all cases as the orders of removal or dismissal of the petitioners were based on serious misconduct committed by them.