1976 Supreme(Raj) 57

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : D.P.Gupta
RAM KHILARI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. 2577 Of 1974
Decided On : 05/10/1976

The court held that it was incumbent upon the competent disciplinary Authority to set out the reasons which led it to reach at the conclusion that the alleged misconduct on the part of the concerned delinquent employee was proved and that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was justified in the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also held that it was incumbent upon the concerned Disciplinary Authority to communicate the reasons for imposing penalty to the delinquent officer.

Headnote:

The court held that the orders of dismissal or removal of the petitioners from service were not illegal or arbitrary and were brought about in a mechanical manner, with the sole intention to victimise them. The court further held that the Railway Administration discriminated between its employees and although the orders of dismissal and removal were withdrawn in cases of some of such employees, a like treatment was not afforded to the petitioners. The court also held that the concerned Disciplinary Authorities were not bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee even in respect of the nature and extent of the penalty imposed upon him, on account of the utter impracticability of holding even such a summary inquiry. The court further held that it was incumbent upon the competent disciplinary Authority to set out the reasons which led it to reach at the conclusion that the alleged misconduct on the part of the concerned delinquent employee was proved and that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was justified in the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also held that it was incumbent upon the concerned Disciplinary Authority to communicate the reasons for imposing penalty to the delinquent officer.

Fact of the Case:

In May, 1974, a nationwide strike of railway employees took place in India. The petitioners were railway employees who were dismissed from service as a result of their participation in the strike. They challenged their dismissal in court, arguing that it was illegal and arbitrary.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders of dismissal were not illegal or arbitrary, and that the Railway Administration did not discriminate between its employees in the matter of withdrawing the orders of dismissal. The court also found that the concerned Disciplinary Authorities were not bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee even in respect of the nature and extent of the penalty imposed upon him, on account of the utter impracticability of holding even such a summary inquiry. The court further found that it was incumbent upon the competent disciplinary Authority to set out the reasons which led it to reach at the conclusion that the alleged misconduct on the part of the concerned delinquent employee was proved and that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was justified in the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also found that it was incumbent upon the concerned Disciplinary Authority to communicate the reasons for imposing penalty to the delinquent officer.

Issues: 1. Whether the orders of dismissal were illegal or arbitrary? 2. Whether the Railway Administration discriminated between its employees in the matter of withdrawing the orders of dismissal? 3. Whether the concerned Disciplinary Authorities were bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee even in respect of the nature and extent of the penalty imposed upon him? 4. Whether it was incumbent upon the competent disciplinary Authority to set out the reasons which led it to reach at the conclusion that the alleged misconduct on the part of the concerned delinquent employee was proved and that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was justified in the facts and circumstances of each case? 5. Whether it was incumbent upon the concerned Disciplinary Authority to communicate the reasons for imposing penalty to the delinquent officer?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the orders of dismissal were not illegal or arbitrary because they were based on the petitioners' participation in an illegal strike, which had caused significant disruption to the economy and the movement of goods and services. 2. The court held that the Railway Administration did not discriminate between its employees in the matter of withdrawing the orders of dismissal because there was no evidence that the petitioners were treated differently from other employees who had participated in the strike. 3. The court held that the concerned Disciplinary Authorities were not bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee even in respect of the nature and extent of the penalty imposed upon him, on account of the utter impracticability of holding even such a summary inquiry. 4. The court held that it was incumbent upon the competent disciplinary Authority to set out the reasons which led it to reach at the conclusion that the alleged misconduct on the part of the concerned delinquent employee was proved and that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was justified in the facts and circumstances of each case. 5. The court held that it was incumbent upon the concerned Disciplinary Authority to communicate the reasons for imposing penalty to the delinquent officer.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions of the petitioners whose orders of dismissal were communicated to them without any reasons and quashed the orders of dismissal and the subsequent orders passed on appeal. The court dismissed the writ petitions of the petitioners whose orders of dismissal contained particulars of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by them.