Sharma, J.—This is an application by Sukhai—Ex washout collie, Loco-shed, Kotah for the issue of writ of Mandamus or any other proper writ or directive which might be considered feasible to the Union of India, General Manager Western Railway, Bombay Churchgate and Mr. I. T. Carter, District Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Gangapur City to -set aside the order of his removal from service, issued by the General Manager, Western Railway under his Order No, F/2 dated the 30th August, 1951. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as under: —

2. The petitioner was appointed in Loco Department of B. B. & C.I. Railway (now Western Railway) in the year 1923. On 1st of January, 1952, on change of the B. B. & C. I. Company into a State Managed Railway, the petitioner by virtue of option, given to him by the District Loco and Carriage Superintendent, Gangapur in the name of General Manager of the said Railway, became a member of the State managed Railway-Subordinate staff (Non-Gazetted) Service. While employed at Kotah Loco-shed, he occupied a railway quarter No. L/309/G. He was asked to vacate that quarter by the Fitter Incharge Kotah on the 1st April, 1951 who served him with a notice, stating therein that he would be fined if he did not vacate the quarter and he was asked to reply to this notice within three days. The petitioner replied to this notice on the 4th of April, 1951 saying that he found the quarter lying vacant and so he occupied it. On the 16th April, 1951, the District Mechanical Engineer made an order on the basis of notice of the Fitter Incharge and the petitioners reply that if the petitioner did not vacate the quarter by the 25th April, 1951, he would be charge-sheeted. He was also given fifteen days leave on the 22nd April, 1951 in order to find out an alternative accommodation. Upto the 9th May, 1951, however, the petitioner did not vacate the quarter and the Fitter Incharge, Kotah informed the District Mechanical Engineer that the quarter was not vacated. On this letter an order was made by the District Mechanical Engineer that the petitioner should be served with a charge-sheet in accordance with Appendix B for insubordination. That charge-sheet was drawn up on the 17/18th May, 1951 and it was received by the petitioner on the 19th May, 1951. The petitioner replied to this charge-sheet saying that it was under the verbal orders of the District Mechanical Engineer that he occupied the quarter. He did not say anything as to whether he intended to vacate the quarter or not. On 21st June, 1951, the Distract Mechanical Engineer sent a letter to the Fitter Incharge, Kotah asking him if the petitioner had vacated the quarter or not. In another letter dated the 4th July, 1951, the. District Mechanical Engineer informed the Fitter Incharge that it was wrong to say that he had given any verbal permission to the petitioner to occupy the quarter. On the 8th July, 1951, the petitioner made an application that he might be permitted to continue for sometime more. He was given time to vacate the quarter upto the 10th of July, 1951. He, however, did not vacate the quarter on the said date. On the 19th July, 1951, therefore, provisional decision was reached that the petitioner be removed from service and this order was served on the petitioner on the 4th August 1951. The petitioner replied to this provisional decision on the 9th August, 1951 and said that he declined to accept the decision. On the 30th August, 1951, therefore, order was passed that with effect from the 11th of October, 1951, the petitioner be removed from service. After giving notices under sec. 80 Civil Procedure Code dated the 24th September and 16th October, 1951, the petitioner presented the present petition for writ and direction as mentioned above.

3. The petitioner attacks the order of his removal from service on the following two grounds:—

1. That he was not removed from service by the authority which appointed him,

2. That no reasonable

Click Here to Read the rest of this document