The Railway Administration cannot remove an employee from service by way of imposing a penalty in exercise of their disciplinary jurisdiction without giving a real and reasonable opportunity to the employee to show cause against the proposed penalty.

( 1 ) THE two appellants before us used to be blacksmiths employed in the Railway Workshop at Lil-looah under the Eastern Railway. On 9-2-1932, a criminal prosecution was launched against them on the allegation that between the hours of 1 a. m. and 3 a. m. in the previous night, they had indulged in gambling, while they should have been attending to their duties. The prosecution, which was under Section 15, Howrah Offences Act, failed, because the learned Magistrate found that the section only punished gambling in the public streets, but not gambling inside any premises. Accordingly, he acquitted them. The Railway Administration, however, thought that the acquittal was only a technical one and that the appellants had been guilty of conduct which called for disciplinary action. They, therefore, started a proceeding.

( 2 ) THE acquittal was on 17-3-1952. On the 24th of March following, the appellants were served with a charge sheet which set out a charge to the effect that the appellants had been guilty of serious misconduct, in that, neglecting their duty, they had been playing cards and gambling in the Blacksmith Shop irom 1 a. m. to 3 a. m. in the night of 9-2-1952. The charge-sheet also called upon the appellants to show cause why they should not be punished with the penalty specified in item 6 of a list of penalties set out therein. Item 6 was ''removal from service. " In form, therefore, the notice was one, requiring the appellants to show cause both as to why they should not be found guilty of the charge framed against them and as to why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted.

( 3 ) IN answer to the charge-sheet served on them, the appellants submitted an explanation on 29-3-1952. The explanation was not considered satisfactory and a Committee of Enquiry, constituted of respondents 4, 5 and 6 namely, the Personal Assistant to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, the Assistant Works Manager (M), Lillooah and the Employment Officer, was set up for carrying out an investigation into the charge. It appears that the proceedings before the Committee were protracted and occupied as many as eight months. The appellants were represented before the Committee and took part in its proceedings at every stage.

( 4 ) AFTER the Committee of Enquiry had reported, the Works Manager considered the report along with the explanation submitted by the appellants. Upon doing so, he formed the opinion provisionally that the appellants should be removed from service and accordingly by two separate notices, dated 24-1-1953 and 28-1-1953, respectively, required the appellants to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should not be inflicted on them. It will thus be noticed that although the charge-sheet looked like intending to give the appellants only a single opportunity for defending themselves, in fact, the strict procedure prescribed by the Disciplinary Rules was followed and a second opportunity, limited to showing cause against the penalty proposed, was given.

( 5 ) UP to the stage of the notice requiring the appellants to show cause against the penalty proposed to be imposed, no irregularity is alleged to have been committed. On receiving the notices, the appellants asked for copies of the proceedings before the Committee of Enquiry. The request was made by a petition dated 30-1-1953, but on 2nd February following, the appellants were informed that the copies asked for could not be supplied to them as it would be against a Departmental Rule to do so. A second request elicited a similar reply dated 6-2-1953, and the relevant Rule which according to the Railway Administration, forbade the supply of a copy of the proceedings at that stage was set out in extenso. The original notice had given the appellants seven days' time to show such cause as they might have to show, but by the subsequent letters, the time was extended. Further correspondence followed of which particular mention may be made of a lette