NANAG RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8th October, 1974 (Annx. 9), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd August, 1985 (Annx. 13) by which the order of removal was confirmed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the, petitioner was holding the post of Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force and was posted at Phulera junction in March 1972. At that time, a memorandum dated 31st March, 1972, a charge -sheet was served upon him and an enquiry was proposed to be held under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (for short, the Rules). The charge against the petitioner was that he remained gross negligent in the discharge of his duty resulting in theft of 6 cases of rum valued at Rs. 500/ - which took place while he was on duty in Dn. Yard PL from 20 Hrs. of 26th February, 1972 to 8 Hrs. of 27th February, 1972 from Wagon No. WR 22450 stabled on line No. 33 at PL Yard. which he failed to prevent or detect. He was also charged for utter neglectful working in that he checked only four incoming trains and no outgoing trains from 8 Hrs on February 27, 1972, and also failed to sign for four incoming trains checked by him in seal checking book. The petitioner denied the charges and, thereafter an enquiry was held. After the enquiry was over, a show cause notice dated 13th September, 1973, under Rule 44(10)(2) of the Rules was served upon him, stating that a penalty of reduction in pay to the lowest stage of his time scale for one year affecting his future increments is proposed. Along with the show cause notice, finding of the Assistant Security Officer and copy of enquiry report dated 16th August, 1972 were also sent to the petitioner. It may be stated here that the charge -sheet was served by J.J. Singh, who at the relevant time was Assistant Security Officer. He served the charge -sheet being the disciplinary authority, vide memorandum dated 17/19th April, 1974. The petitioner was served with a notice for enhancement of penalty of removal from service. This notice was issued by Shri J.J. Singh who at the relevant time was the Security Officer. It may be relevant to mention here that he is the same person who issued the charge -sheet. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice. The Security Officer vide order dated 8th October, 1974, imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Security Officer, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31st March, 1975. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Chief Security Officer, the petitioner preferred a petition before the Chief Security Officer, which was rejected as communicated vide letter dated 16th August, 1975 (Annx.11). The petitioner then preferred a representation to the Inspector General of Railway Protection Force, which was also rejected by the Appellate order dated 7th July, 1976. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1773/1976. A learned Judge of this Court by order dated 6th May, 1985, quashed the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the case to the Deputy Chief Security Officer with the direction that he should decide the appeal in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. He again appeared before the Deputy Chief Security Officer. After hearing, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 22nd August, 1985. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd August, 1985, and the order of punishment dated 8th October, 1974 (Annx. 9), whereby his services were terminated.

(3.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his removal from service on various grounds. It is submitted by the petitioner that the various grounds raised by him in the appeal were not taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has also contended that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The order of removal from service has also been challenged on the ground that Shri J.J. Singh who enhanced the punishment was biased against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the petitioner that he challenged the order of removal that in the show cause notice for enhancement of penalty, no reasons were assigned for not agreeing with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the order of removal was passed taking into consideration the depositions made by one of the witnesses Shri Amilal that the petitioner offered a sum of Rs. 500/ - to suppress the facts. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is that he was not given an opportunity to rebut the statement of Amilal for the purpose of deciding the quantum of punishment.