The Disciplinary Authority is required to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances before passing an order of penalty under Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

The petitioner in this application, who is a Railway servant i.e. Health Inspector, Pathandih, challenges the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 27.10.78 removing him from his service with immediate effect. According to the petitioner the said order was served on him on 15.11.78.

2. As the facts of this case are not in dispute, only a brief reference thereto may be made.

3. The petitioner was charged with an offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S.5(l)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1975 on the allegation that be took Rs. 40/- as bribe or illegal gratification from two sweepers of the Eastern Railway working under him. Thereafter, by the order dated 20th November 1975 issued by the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the respondent no. 3 the petitioner was suspended from service with effect 1.11.75. In the criminal case instituted against the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 20th July, 1978 the learned Judge, Special Court, Howrah found the petitioner guilty of the charges and convicted him under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Against the said order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal to this Court on 1.8.1978 and by order dated 18.1976 this Court stayed the realisation of fine and the petitioner was allowed to remain on bail. It is stated by the petitioner that by his letter dated 3.8.78 through proper channel he informed the respondent No. 2 the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad about the said order dated 1.8.1978, and enclosed therewith a certified copy of the Advocate's letter testifying to the aforesaid fact and prayed for sympathetic consideration of his case. Thereafter, by an office order dated October 27, 1978 passed by the respondent No.3 the petitioner was removed from his service and a copy of the said order was handed over to the petitioner by the Welfare Inspector, Dhanbad on November 15, 1978.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner after demanding justice by his Advocate's letter dated November 11, 1978 made the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said order of removal dated October 27, 1978.

5. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority at the time of passing of the impugned order did not consider the pending Criminal Appeal and the order passed therein on 1.8.1978. According to Mr. Bose this affects the impugned order in two ways. First, in view of the order dated 1.8.1978 in the Criminal Appeal trial court's order could not be said to be final and therefore, it was not open to the respondents to take any proceedings under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), on the basis of the petitioner's conviction on a criminal charge and secondly, the said fact should have been taken into account by the Disciplinary Authority before a warding the said punishment to the petitioner. Mr. Bose has further submitted that before passing of the order the Disciplinary Authority ought to have consulted the Public Service Commission in terms of the proviso to the Rule 14. It is an admitted fact that no such consultation was made by the Disciplinary Authority. Lastly, Mr. Bose has submitted that before passing of the final order of punishment no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make representation before the Disciplinary Authority regarding appropriate nature of the punishment and, that being so, the order of removal from, service in any event, is bad in law. In support of his above submissions Mr. Bose has relied very strongly on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Personnel Officer v. T.R. Challappan AIR 1975 SC 2216 and in particular p