In departmental inquiries, the accused railway servant has the right to be assisted by another railway servant as a defence counsel, and the failure to adjourn the inquiry to enable such assistance constitutes a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein who joined the Railway Service on 13-4-28, was confirmed as a Sub-head Stores Accounts on 19-9-1962. By a charge-sheet dated 6-11-1964, the following charge was framed against the petitioner:

"that Sim. K. N. Gupta while functioning as a Sub-head in the Fuel Section. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity inasmuch as he on 18-3-1964 and 19-3-1964 went to the Central Hospital. Northern Railway, New Delhi, and obtained costly medicines such as Cough Lozenges tablets and one bottle of B-Complex Fort, Glycodine and Terramycine eyointment against two forged prescriptions in the names of Hari Prakash Gupta and Mahesh Shri K N. Gupta has acted in contravention of Rule 3 of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules. 1956. "

THE petitioner was asked to submit a written statement of defence not later than 20-11-1964. He was further asked to state whether he desired to be heard in person and to furnish the names and addresses of the witnesses if any, whom he wished to call in support of his defence and to furnish a list of documents, if any. which he wished to produce in support of his defence. The petitioner was further informed that if he so desired, he could inspect and take extracts from the documents mentioned in the enclosed list at any time during office hours within seven working days on receipt of the Memorandum. The Memorandum also stated that if the petitioner desired to be given access to any other official records other than those specified in the list, he should submit a list of all such additional documents to the officer issuing the Memorandum within five days of completing the inspection of the documents mentioned in the list. The petitioner was also informed that if he so desired, he might take the assistance of another Railway servant or an official of Railway Trade Union who satisfied the requirements of Rule 1712 (2) of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, for inspecting the documents and assisting him in presenting his case before the Enquiring authority in the event of an oral enquiry being held and tor that purpose he should furnish the names of three persons in order of preference to assist him. The petitioner on 9-31-1964 wrote to the Senior Accounts Officer seeking permission to inspect and to take copies of six enumerated documents. He requested that a date, time and place for inspection and taking copies of the said documents be advised to him. He further requested that the articles and documents seized by the Railway Vigilance Inspector from the petitioner on 19-3-1964 might be ordered to be returned to the petitioner to enable him to submit his statement of defence. But the petitioner did not name his defence counsel. The petitioner attended the office of the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi, on 2-1-1965 and on 4-1-1965 and he was allowed to inspect and to take extracts from the statements of the witnesses. The report of the Special Police Establishment was shown to the petitioner on 12-2-1965 by the Special Police Establishment and his own statement dated 19-3-1964 was also shown to the petitioner by the Special Police Establishment s office. The two forged prescriptions were also seen by the petitioner on 12-1-1965. No other report of any handwriting expert was made available to the Railways and hence the question of showing the same to the petitioner did not arise. The recovery-list of articles and documents seized from the petitioner on 19-3-1964 and the receipt and issue register of 18-3-1964 and 19-3-1964 were also shown to the petitioner and he has taken extracts from them. However, when the petitioner wanted to inspect them again, he was advised to attend the S. P. E s office on 15-1-1965 but the petitioner declined to go to that office for that purpose on the allegation that he was not properly treated there. Notwithstanding all these things, the petitioner started writing to the Railway authoriti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document