Back
High Court Of Calcutta
M. N. Roy
ABDUL KAFI KHAN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Rule 3831 (W) Of 1976
Decided On : 04/11/1979
RAILWAY SERVICES DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES, 1968 - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 - CAUSE OF ACTION - LOCATION OF OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER OF RAILWAYS - WHETHER SUFFICIENT TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON HIGH COURT - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a railway employee, challenged the charge-sheet, enquiry report, and show cause notice issued to him, alleging violations of railway rules and Article 311 of the Constitution. He argued that the proceedings were illegal, improper, and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner claimed that the charge-sheet was issued by an unauthorized official and that the enquiry was conducted in violation of rules and principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition as the cause of action did not arise within its territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that the impugned orders were passed by authorities located outside its jurisdiction and that the General Manager of Eastern Railway, whose office was within the court's jurisdiction, had not passed any order in the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging orders passed by authorities located outside its territorial jurisdiction. 2. Whether the location of the office of the General Manager of Railways within the court's jurisdiction confers jurisdiction on the court to hear the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. S. Rashid and Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao, and Khajoor Singh v. Union of India. The court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is limited to places within which the cause of action arises or the authorities against whom the writs are issued are located. The court further held that the mere location of the office of the General Manager of Railways within its jurisdiction was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court, as the cause of action did not arise within its territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It held that the petitioner could approach the appropriate forum for redress of his grievances.
( 1 ) IN this Rule, the petitioner has impeached the charge-sheet in Annexure 'b', the enquiry report in Annexure 'g' and the show cause notice in Annexure 'h', contending them to be bad, illegal, improper and issued in violation of principles of natural justice apart from contending that they were also in contravention of Railway Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and also of Article311 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE petitioner has stated to have been appointed by the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway respondent No. 3 on 23rd Jan. 1959 and at the time material to the issue of the Rule, he was working as a Switchman at Kechki in Bihar. He has also claimed to be permanent Class III staff. It appears that on 10th March 1974 Up Barwadih-Dehri-on-Sone-Mughalsarai Passenger, the driver of which was one Shri Musafit and Shri N. K. Pandey, was the guard, left Mangra Station and reached up Loop Line at Kechki at about 9. 10 a. m. It has been stated that because of a fault at the relevant time in the overhead line, token less working between stations from Mangra and Chianki was suspended and paper line clear had been introduced. The petitioner at the material time was working as a Switchman in West Cabin, Kechki. He has stated to have given duly a slot to East Cabin and exchanged private number with the Station Master on duty. After arrival of the concerned train, the petitioner has stated to have gone to point No. 16, which was set for down main line to release the detector so that he could divert the train from up Loop Line to main line after reversing the lever point. The petitioner has alleged that during such operation the train started and he immediately ran with the red flag for stopping the same. The petitioner has also stated that he asked one Shri Babulal, the relieving Switchman, who was present at that time, to show danger signal to the train. But all these attempts failed and the concerned train entered into the sand-hump and the engine was derailed. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any bogie was derailed nor there was injury to any person. However, the passengers of the train became very angry and furious and they started chasing the petitioner and he in fear and for the purpose of saving him from the onslaught of the passengers, fled away from the place.
( 3 ) THERE was an on spot enquiry and a report by the enquiry committee to the following effect:"the Switchman on duty in W/cabin Shri Abdul Kafi Khan is prima facie responsible for giving Private Number 69 to the Station Master on duty at Kechki Station for issue of OP/t 27 for the defective up loop starter signal for starting I B. D. M. Passenger from there to main line without setting the relevant points for main line and having them set in the normal position to sand-hump. Thus he violated subsidiary R. 53 (e) (ii ). (2) Shri B. M. Dev, train examiner and Shri Manbodh, Fitter of Barawadih, who examined the rake at Barawadih, are prima facie responsible for allowing it to be worked as I B. D. M. Passenger train with weak Brake Power of 66% active vacuum cylinders only as out of 12 cylinders on the train, four cylinders were converted blank (inactive ). They thus, violated instructions contained in C M E Calcutta left No. MC/208/pt III dated 6-6-1966.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, on 19th March 1974, the petitioner was suspended by an order of the Divisional Safety Officer, Respondent No. 4, whose office is at Dhanbad at Bihar and outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Then on 29th July 1974, a charge-sheet in Annexure 'b' was issued to the petitioner alleging that on 10th March 1974, he gave a Private No. 69 to the Station Master on duty at Kechki for the issue of OP/t-27 for the defective Loop Starter signal for the concerned train for main line, without setting the relevant points for such line and leaving them set in normal posi- tion to sand hump. As such he viola
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
