M.P Varma, J.:— This writ application is directed against the order of removal from service, passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority of the North Eastern Railway, and subsequently confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority, with a further prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Railway Authorities to reinstate the petitioner to his post with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this application in short, are that the petitioner was in service of the Railway as an Engine Driver, and in that capacity, he was taking a Down Empty Special train on 24-4-1978 in Engine Number 3090 Y.G and was proceeding from Darbhanga to Barauni. When he reached Buchwara Railway Station, he found the stater even (signal) for Teghara railway action and so he moved on, and despite his efforts to avert collusion, the said engine collided with S.C 9 Up, resulting in an accident in between Buchwara and Teghara railway station, causing a few fatal casualties. The petitioner on this account was placed under suspension by the Respondent. A disciplinary proceeding for imposing major penalty was initiated by Respondent No. 2, memorandum, whereof was communicated to the petitioner.
3. The aforesaid enquiry concluded within a period of two months and finding the petitioner guilty of the charge, respondent No. 2, by his order dated 28-2-1979, removed the petitioner from service with effect from the date of the order passed, which is Annexurey—‘1’.
4. The petitioner has made out a case in this writ application that he applied on 17-3-1979 for getting all the relevant documents, including enquiry report, reasons for the findings and also of the findings arrived at to enable him to prefer an appeal but those documents were not supplied to him. This application dated 17-3-1979 is Annexure ‘2’. The petitioner, on this score has made a grievance against the order of removal from service and that he was prejudiced in preferring his appeal. The appeal was made on 11-2-1980 and the appellate authority, Respondent No. 3 dismissed the same by order dated 28-2-1980, vide Annexure ‘3’. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit to his main writ application in which he has annexed the order passed by the appellate authority, which is Annexure—‘3’ whereby the authority confirmed the punishment imposed upon the petitioner.
5. The petitioner, therefore, in this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of the orders contained in Annexures ‘1’ and ‘3’.
6. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have controverted the allegations of the petitioner. They have filed several documents showing that the Disciplinary Authorities observed all the due formalities, and even the Appellate Authority afforded all opportunities to the petitioner by supplying him the relevant papers to permit him to file appeal on the basis of all the papers and on the basis of findings of the enquiry proceeding. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner did avail of those opportunities and was in no way prejudiced in the matter of defence and appeal, so much so that the petitioner was permitted; to be represented before the authorities through his authorised agents. It has also been stated that full opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect all the connected records and also to take extracts from the same. The person to whom the petitioner had authorised and deputed looked into all the documents and even took extracts therefrom, in token whereof, he had put a note on the record.
7. Main grievance of the petitioner canvassed before this Court is that the authorities have acted in violation of the principle of natural justice in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and as also the appellate one.
8. A plain reading of the annexures supplied in the counter-affidavit, authenticity of which has not been disputed (and detailed discussions of those documents are not needed, for the sake of brevity) clearly indicate that the Railway Authorities did extend all proper opportunities to facilitate him to conduct well before the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities and there was no cause of any prejudice at any stage. This contention of the denial of proper opportunity to him has therefore no substance.
9. It has not been argued that the petitioner was not served with a second show-cause notice against the proposed punishment But it has not been disputed at the Bar that the provisions for a second show cause do no longer exist and hence, its absence, can not, in any way effect the legality or the propriety of the orders imposing punishment upon the petitioner.
10. In the circumstances the application fails. It is accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to cost.
Comments