HARBANSLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by Harbanslal, once a clerk in the Northern Railway Bikaner, who challenges his dismissal from service on the grounds that he was dismissed by an authority subordinate to the one by which he was appointed and that he had not been aforded reasonable opportunity of showing cause and he prays that his dismissal order be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner was served with a charge-sheet accusing him that he received a bribe in the sum of Rs. 150/- for the transfer of Pindi Das, a fitter in the Loco Shed from Hanumangarh Junction to Delhi Sarai Rohilla. THE Charge-sheet was accompanied by the statement of allegations. He was required to show cause within 7 days of its receipt as to why he should not be dismissed from service or punished with any of the lesser penalties specified in Rule 1707 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code, Volume 1. THE petitioner categorically denied the charges levelled against him. An Enquiry Committee consisting of the Workshop Assistant Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Bikaner was constituted to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was again given to the petitioner by the enquiry Committee on 29th January, 1964. THE petitioner protested saying that the Enquiry Committee had no authority to amend the charge. THE Enquiry Committee observed by their order of the 29th January, 1964 that it was merely to make him understand the nature of allegations against him that the charge-sheet was served on him and the charges were the same as were originally levelled against him. THE petitioner was required to answer. THE petitioner ''demanded" the copies of the statements of the "prosecution witnesses examined by the Investigating Authority, that is the Special Police Establishment in this case, and later-complained that the statements of Mahavir Prasad and Puran Singh were not furnished to him. Enquiry was held and petitioner was found guilty. Another notice was served on him to show cause why the proposed action of dismissal be not taken against him. THE petitioner again submitted his reply on 9th June, 1964 but by order of 19th December, 1965 passed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer and Financial Advisor, Northern Railway, New Delhi, respondent No. 2, the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon him THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Financial Advisor and the Chief Accounts Officer Northern Railway, respondent No. 3, which was dismissed on 3-5-1965. He then preferred this petition challenging the aforesaid dismissal order on the ground that the General Manager or the Chief Administrative Officer, that is the Divisional Superintendent, Bikaner alone were competent to impose the punishment against him. THE order of dismissal by the respondent No 2 he contends is in violation of Art. 311 (1) of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, inoperative and void ab initio. THE further ground raised is that the enquiry against the petitioner was a complete farce and was violative of the principles of natural justice because at the stage of the framing of charge no punishment could be proposed as was done in the charge-sheet and this prejudiced the mind of the Enquiry Committee and thereby it violated Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. He further contends that the charge of misconduct alleged against him was not a serious misconduct according to the Railway Rules and the proper and the only course against the petitioner was to proceed against him in accordance with law. THE enquiry was, therefore, without jurisdiction. He also claims that the non-supply of the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer of the Special Police Establishment of two witnesses resulted in prejudice and vitiated the enquiry and therefore his dismissal order should be quashed.

(3.) NO other point has been pressed before us.