( 1 ) THE only point in this appeal is whether the disciplinary authority considered the record of the enquiry and recorded its findings on each charge before he issued show cause notice to the delinquent. It appears that the petitioner was a Rakshak in the armed wings of the Railway Protection Force, Easter Railway and he was charged with the following misconduct: - (1)you are hereby charged with gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct under rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1959 in that you at. . . . on the 23rd night of August 1961 you were issued with command certificate No. 328 dated 23. 8. 1961 at 23/48 hrs. , to proceed to take up your duty in between up outer location box and Taratala Gate after relieving the 'c' shift party consisting of RK 630 Jamuna and R K 610 S. N. Singh. But you did not care to proceed to take up your duty and remained in the barrack unauthorisedly. (2)you assaulted SR 702 Phani Bhusan Nag at about 02/00 hrs. on 4. 8. 1961 near Taratala Level Crossing Gate causing bleeding injuries on his person. . . and you are hereby called upon to show cause. . . the penalties prescribed under rule 41 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1959 should not be imposed upon you or you should not be punished with any of the lesser penalties specified therein.

( 2 ) THERE was an enquiry held to the charges by an Assistant Security Officer and the petitioner was found guilty of both the charges. The enquiry officer however was not the disciplinary authority and the Security Officer who was the disciplinary authority passed the following order against the petitioner on 18. 2. 63. After considering (i) the documentary evidence (ii) your written explanation dated 29. 6. 61 in reply to the C/sheet No. 297/61 of 8. 9. 61 and (iii) the findings of the departmental enquiry drawn up on 16. 9. 61 or (b) your oral defence or further explanation given at the time of personal interview, I have arrived at the conclusion that the following charge/charges has/have been proved against you and that you are guilty of the same: charges (a)gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct under Rule 44 of the RPF Rules 1959 in that on the 23rd night of August 1961 (1) you were issued with command certificate No. 328 dated 23. 8. 61 at 23/48 hrs. to proceed to take up your duty in between up outer location box and Taratala Gate after relieving the C/shift party consisting of RK/630 Jamuna and RK/610 S. N. Singh. But you did not care to proceed to take you duty and remained in the barrack unauthorisedly. (2) You assaulted SR/702 Phani Bhusan Nag at about 02/00 hrs. on 24. 8. 61 near Taratala level crossing gate causing injuries on his person. 2. I have, therefore, provisionally formed the opinion that you should be dismissed from service.

( 3 ) YOU are hereby given 7 clear days time from the receipt hereof to show cause why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted on you. Any representation that you may make in this connection will be taken into consideration before passing final orders. 3. To this there was a reply by the petitioner and after considering the cause shown by the petitioner the disciplinary authority passed a formal order of dismissal against the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal thereafter was also dismissed. A rule was obtained against this order directing a writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the same.

( 4 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Judge that the enquiry officer took into consideration certain statements made by some witnesses also in an exparte fact finding proceeding which was not disclosed to the petitioner and the petitioner had no opportunity to examine the witnesses. Reliance was placed on the decision of (1) Khardah and Co. Ltd. and its workmen, 1963 (2) LLJ 452. In an earlier case in (2) State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa AIR 1963 SC 375, the Supreme Court laid down that in the case of departmental enquiries held aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document