Dua, J.:— The petitioner was a booking clerk in August, 1957 in the Northern Railway and on 9th August, 1961, while holding that post, he was prosecuted under sections 420/471/477-A, Indian Penal Code. His trial continued up to December, 1933. Orders were passed against him under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act XX of 1958 and the petitioner was released on entering into a bond of Rs. 2,000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year from 18th December, 1963; the date of the order. The petitioner was also ordered under section 5(1) of the said Act, to pay Rs. 100/- to the Northern Railway as compensation for the loss caused and a further sum of Rs. 200/- as costs of the proceedings to the State. It is averred that the entire sum has ben paid. On 27th April, 1964, an order was made by the Senior Personnal Officer (R) H.Q office of Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to resume his duty. A year later orders were issued to the effect that the petitioner having been found guilty of having committed offences under sections 420/471/477-A, Indian Penal Code, and 342, Criminal Procedure Code, he was removed from service with immediate effect It was mentioned therein that he had been convicted and, therefore, let off by the court under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been presented. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 2nd September, 1965
2. It is these orders which are assailed in the present proceedings and all that has been said is that by virture of section 12 read with section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act it was not open to the authorities concerned to remove the petitioner from service.
3. In the return, it has been pleaded that the petitioner had during October and November, 1961, entered into a criminal conspiracy with others with the object of defrauding the Indian Railways and with that object, removed blank “Student Concession Order Forms” and misused the same and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government.
4. The matter was reported to the police and the petitioner was convicted on 18th December, 1963. The Magistrate released the petitioner on his entering into a bond of Its. 2,090/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during one year from 18th Dece.nber, 1963 and was also ordered to pay Rs. 100/- to the Northern Railway and Rs. 200/- as costs to the State.
5. At the bar, Shri R.L Aggarwa has drawn my attention to Rule 17 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules for the Non Gazetted Railway Servant (1957 Edition) where it is stated that a Railway servant shall be liable to be dismissed from service in the following circumstances viz:—
“(i) Conviction by a criminal court, or by a court martial, or The petitioner's learned couasal has, however, submitted that by virtue of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under section 4 of the said Act cannot suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under my other law. It is, no vever, conceded that protection under Article 311, of the Constitution is not available to a person whose removal follows his conviction on a criminal charge.
6. It may be pointed out that the petitioner has not claimed the protection of Article 311 in the writ petition and no foundation has been laid therein of violation of that Article. Indeed as fairly and frankly stated by his counsel, he was of the view that such protection was not available to his client and that is why he did not make out a case of breach of that Article in the writ petition. Now, if that be so, then I am unable to see how the petitioner can claim any relief in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. No law has been shown, nor are facts disclosed, which would clothe the petitioner with a right to remain in service, of which right he can claim to have been illegally devoid. Even no contractual obligation has been established, though if there were any such contractual obligation, the better course would have been to enforce it by means of a regular suit and not in writ proceedings. I may point out here that in the return, a plea has been taken that the petitioner, if so advised, can have adequate remedy by alternative proceedings like a civil suit. Be that as it may, I do not think in the present proceedings any case for interference has been made out by the petitioner. In the end, a faint attempt has been made to argue that the plea in the writ application may be construed so as to include violation of the provisions of Article 311, but I am unable to construe either the form or the substance of this application to include breach of the protection afforded by this Article. The argument of liberal construction of pleadings has, in fairness to the opposite party, to be confined within reasonable limits which are quite well recognised. In the case in hand, such an argument does not avail the petitioner, and indeed the learned counsel also soon gave up the attempt.
7. Lastly, the counsel has appealed to me on compassionate grounds urging that the petitioner should not be deprived of his means of livelihood. Whereas I do feel that the petitioner has lost his means of livelihood, I must point out that he has to thank himself for these consequences. This court has to administer justice in accordance with law and if there is nothing wrong with the impugned order, I can have no jurisdiction to quash it or set it aside Honestly and integrity in public administration or in Government service in a set up like ours is, in my view, of the utmost importance and it is high time that these traits in Government servants and those holding position of responsibility in public administration are scruptuously insisted upon and enforce irrespective of considerations of hardship on the person found to be dishonest and wanting in an integrity for these vices in the quarters just mentioned, acts as deadly poison in the body politic of a welfare State like ours.
8. For the reason foregoing, this petition fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.
9. Petition dismissed.