KISHORI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Kishori Lal was initially appointed as a literate cleaner in the Western Railway in the year 1945. He was gradually promoted to higher posts and in the year 1970 he was working on the post of a Loco Inspector at Abu Road. On February 13, 1970 the Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway Ajmer, who is admittedly the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, issued to him a memorandum along with a charge sheet and a statement of allegations. It Was alleged that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct on account of his irresponsible and irregular working and neglect of duty on his part. THE statement of allegations furnished to the petitioner along with the charge sheet contained nine grounds. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted in which seven persons were examined as witnesses on behalf of the Department and the petitioner produced two witnesses in his defence. THE Enquiring Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority in which he held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. On January 4, 1971 the Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service be not Imposed upon him. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated March 19, 1971 imposed the penalty of permanent reduction to the post of Steam Driver grade (c) in the grade of Rs. 150-240 (A) upon the petitioner. THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Bombay, who accepted the appeal on the ground that certain material which was not placed on the record of the enquiry, viz, the confidential reports should not have been relied upon in imposing the penalty upon the petitioner. THE Chief Mechanical Engineer (E), therefore, cancelled the order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Ajmer and remitted the matter back to him for processing the same further without relying on the documents-statements which did not form part of the enquiry proceedings. THEreupon, the Divisional Superintendent considered the matter afresh and passed a fresh order on April 24, 1972 awarding the same penalty to the petitioner of permanent reduction to the post of Steam Driver grade (c ). This order was communicated to the petitioner vide Memorandum dated May 1, 1972 (Annexure 5 ). THE petitioner again filed an appeal against the last mentioned order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, but this time the Chief Mechanical Engineer (E) by his order dated September 8, 1972 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Ajmer dated May 1, 1972 and the appellate order as communicated to him vide memorandum dated September 27,1972 in this writ petition.

(2.) THE first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct and those given by the Appellate Authority, viz, the Chief Mechanical Engineer (E), while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, ought to have been communicated to the petitioner and that serious prejudice was caused to him on account of non-communication of the reasons contained in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. In the writ petition, the petitioner has taken the ground that no reasons were recorded by the Disciplinary Authority while passing a fresh order imposing penalty upon him. But the respondents produced a copy of the detailed order passed by the Divisional Superintendent on April 24, 1972 along with their reply to the writ petition. It was on the basis of the aforesaid order of the Divisional Superintendent dated April 24, 1972 (Annex-ure R. 1) that the communication dated May 1, 1972 was sent to the petitioner, intimating him that the penalty of reduction to the post of Steam Driver Grade (C) permanently was imposed upon him on account of serious misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was seriously prejudiced in his defence as no effective appeal could be maintained by him against the order imposing penalty upon him in the absence of communication to him of the reasons contained in the order Annexure R. 1. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Khilari Versus Union of India (1 ). THE counsel for the Railway Administration, on the other hand, argued that when the Disciplinary Authority was in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer with regard to the charges against the petitioner, it was not necessary for him to communicate the reasons in respect of the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. It was further argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in its fresh order Annexure R. 1 are substantially the same as were recorded on the earlier occasion, in the order dated March 19, 1971 except the objectionable part thereof, in which extraneous matter contained in the confidential reports of the petitioner was considered. It was also submitted by him that the petitioner was very well aware of the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated April 24, 1972 (Annexure R. 1) as in his appeal dated June 21, 1972 the petitioner himself had stated that the fresh order issued on May 1, 1972 is based upon those very findings of the Divisional Superintendent which was found bad by the Appellate Authority on the earlier occasion and which have been set aside in appeal.

(3.) IN Tara Chand vs. Delhi Municipality (4) the Law on the subject has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - ". . . . . . although it may be necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to record its provisional conclusions in the notice calling upon the delinquent officer to show cause why the proposed punishment be not imposed upon him if it differs from the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer with regard to the charge, it is not obligatory to do so in case the Disciplinary Authority concurs with the findings of the Enquiring Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . We would like to make it clear that while it may be necessary for a disciplinary or administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions to state the reasons in support of its order if it differs from the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made by the enquiring officer in view of the scheme of a particular enactment or the rules made thereunder. It would be laying down the proposition a little too broadly to say that even an order of concurrence must be supported by reasons. It cannot also, in our opinion, be laid down as a general rule that an order is a non-speaking order simply because it is brief and not elaborate. Every case, we think, has to be judged in the light of its own facts and circumstances. "