Back
1950 Supreme(Raj) 162
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Nawalkishore,Bhardwaj
KARTARAM - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN RAILWAY - Respondent
Misc. Petn. 14 Of 1950
Decided On : 10/25/1950
KASTOORMAL, THAN CHAND, U.M.TRIVEDI
The scope of judicial review in a certiorari petition is limited to examining whether the tribunal exercised its jurisdiction bona fide, without being influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations, and not arbitrarily or illegally. The court cannot act as a court of appeal and re-examine the findings of the tribunal.
Headnote:
CERTIORARI - Dismissal of Railway Employee - Mala fides, arbitrariness, and illegality of the dismissal order - Scope of judicial review - Jurisdiction of the General Manager - Definition of "serious misconduct" - Role of the Enquiry Committee - Principles of natural justice - Extraneous considerations - Bona fide exercise of jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
Kartaram, a Head Clerk in the Audit Department of the Rajasthan Railway, was dismissed from service by the General Manager on charges of disobedience of orders, disloyalty to the administration, and various other acts of misconduct. Kartaram challenged the dismissal order by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, alleging mala fides, arbitrariness, and illegality in the dismissal process.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the General Manager had jurisdiction to dismiss Kartaram if he was found guilty of serious misconduct. The court also held that the scope of judicial review in a certiorari petition is limited to examining whether the tribunal exercised its jurisdiction bona fide, without being influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations, and not arbitrarily or illegally. The court further held that the Enquiry Committee's findings, on which the dismissal order was based, could not be challenged in a certiorari petition unless there was a manifest defect of jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the dismissal order was passed in a mala fide manner due to extraneous considerations. 2. Whether the dismissal order was arbitrary and illegal. 3. Whether the Enquiry Committee's findings were defective and could be challenged in a certiorari petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found no evidence of mala fides on the part of the General Manager in appointing an Enquiry Committee to investigate the charges against Kartaram instead of accepting his explanation and holding an inquiry himself. 2. The court held that the dismissal order was not arbitrary or illegal as it was based on the findings of the Enquiry Committee, which had conducted a proper inquiry and found Kartaram guilty of the charges against him. 3. The court held that the scope of judicial review in a certiorari petition is limited to examining whether the tribunal exercised its jurisdiction bona fide and not arbitrarily or illegally. The court cannot act as a court of appeal and re-examine the findings of the tribunal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Kartaram's petition for a writ of certiorari, upholding the dismissal order passed by the General Manager.
NAWALKISHORE, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition by Kartaram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorar.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was employed as Head Clark in the Audit Department of the rajasthan Railway at Udaipur since 6-11-1944. Previous to this, he was serving in the Bikaner Railway and as stated in the petition, possibly had unblemished career, but it was conceded that it cannot influence a decision of the question whether dismissal of the petitioner by the Manager of the Rajasthan Railway, udaipur, on 6-61950 was justified, and therefore we will not refer to it. According to the allegations contained in the petition, some enquiry was being held by the Anti-Corruption Officer at Jaipur against Mr. Padam Singh khamesra, General Manager, regarding certain corrupt practices and Kartaram petitioner was directed to appear as a witness before the Anti-Corruption Officer at Jaipur on 4-1-1950. A duty pass was issued to him and fee went to Jaipur for the purpose. Since the petition and the affidavit are both silent as to details in connection with the order issuing this duty pass, it is not known under whose orders it was issued. It is alleged in the petition and this fact is sworn too in the affidavit that the General Manages, Mr. Khamesra came to know of the fact that the petitioner had appeared as a witness against him and accordingly, transferred him from his substantive post as Head-clerk, Works in the engineering Department to that of Head Clark on Special Duty in the Audit branch. On account of this transfer, it was conceded, the petitioner suffered no loss, monetary or otherwise, but it was urged that if he had continued as a head Clerk in the Engineering Department, he would have remained in touch with the activities in the Department. This contention tends to show the temperament of the petitioner who was obviously interested in matters extraneous to his duties as Head Clerk in the Department. It is urged that by transferring him from the Engineering Department, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of collecting information regarding what was happening in the Department and that this indicated the bias of the General Manager against him. The position, to say the least, appears to he rather strange and since the transfer did not result in any loss to the petitioner, it cannot be held to have been brought about by way of penalty or punishment or as the result of a bias against the petitioner. So far as his departure for Jaipur goes, it is conceded that he did not apply for leave but it is urged that he was permitted to go to jaipur to make the statement. He accordingly left on 4-1-1950 and although his deposition was recorded between 5 1-1950 and 9 1-1950, he did not come back to Udaipur till 15-1-1950. It is stated that he fell ill and remained at Jaipur under the treatment of Dr. Mathur. This fact however is not contained in the affidavit. Granting for a moment that the petitioner bad been permitted to go to jaipur, it is admitted that during the period of his illness, he did not send an application for leave but it is urged that he had sent a telegram and mentioned this fact in his explanation to the charge for having remained absent without leave. The telegram, however, is not available in the records of the Railway department which have been brought to this Court by the respondent and the explanation referred to above is also silent regarding it. When he came back on 16-1-1950, he was treated as absent from fluty without leave and was transferred to the Audit Branch. He was no doubt called upon to explain his conduct but no action was taken against him beyond a warning being extended to him. Thereafter, it appears that a watch was kept on the activities of the petitioner and certain facts came to light, according to which he was found to have been responsible for certain publications in newspapers charging the railway Administration with corruption and breaches o
