Back
Rajasthan High Court
Modi & Chhangani, JJ.
Ramanand - Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Superintendent, N. Railway, Bikaner - Respondents
Civil Writ No 78 of 1959
Decided On : December 22, 1961
It is clearly laid down that a departmental inquiry against a member of the non-gazetted staff should be held normally by two or three gazetted officers, although it has been further laid down that there would be no objection to a single officer to be nominated to hold a departmental inquiry where circumstances warrant such a course. It is not clear whether Rule 42 can supersede the procedure laid down in Rly. Estb. C., even so Rule 42 in the hand-book lays down that normally a departmental inquiry should consist of two or three gazetted officers, though it adds a rider that a single-officer-inquiry would also be permissible where circumstances warrant such a course. Before the last-mentioned course can be accepted as correct, the circumstances warranting it must clearly appear from the order appointing the departmental inquiry. (Para 10)
In an appropriate case, a power has been vested in the inquiry officer to refuse to summon any witness where such witness may not be material to the defence or where the object is merely to protract the proceedings or to harass a particular witness. But this power is, quite obviously, an exceptional power, and its exercise should be rare, and for very good reasons which as the rule itself lay down, must be recorded in writing. Where an inquiry officer chooses to exercise this power, he must do so for cogent reasons which must bear scrutiny and must not be a matter of mere whim or caprice of the inquiry officer. A subsequent recording of the reasons is likely to defeat the very purpose of the rule. (Paras 14 and 15)
The charges against the petitioner were (1) that the petitioner had failed to show any improvement in his working in spite of repeated bad reports against him which reports had not been supplied to him during the course of the inquiry, and (2) that he had failed to improve in his dealing with his staff. There can be no gainsaying the position that charges like these are very easy to make and they are extremely difficult to meet. On the principles of natural justice which are the ultimate guide in a proper determination of matters of this character. Such charges throw the person charged completely and, if not completely, very largely, at the mercy of his accusers, and for the simple reason that they are not specific and are quite general and vague, they afford an almost limitless opportunity for those minded to run down a government servant to say what they like against him without any check whatsoever. (Para 19)
2. The petitioner held the post of a Loco Foreman on the Northern Railway. He was posted at Delhi Serai Rohilla Railway Station on the 25th July, 1957. On the last-mentioned date, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, served him with a charge-sheet in connection with certain complaints arising against him. The petitioner repudiated the charges, but his explanation was not considered satisfactory, and an enquiry was ordered against him by the said officer. Shri K. N. Mathur, an Assistant Mechanical Engineer was appointed Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was held from the 9th November, 1957, to the nth March, 1958. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him, except for a part of charge No. 2 to which we shall refer at the proper place, and was of the opinion that the petitioner was unsuitable for holding the charge of the responsible post of a loco foreman and submitted his report to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer. The latter then issued a notice to the petitioner on the 29th April, 1958, to show cause why he should not be reduced to the post of a charge man on a salary of Rs. 350/- P.M. for a period of two years without affecting his future increments and seniority at restoration. The petitioner submitted his objections, which were over-ruled, and by an order dated the 12th September 1958, he was awarded the punishment mentioned above. Against that order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Divisional Superintendent of the Northern Railway, Bikaner Division, Bikaner. This appeal was rejected on the 29th January, 1959. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up with the present writ application.
3. Now, before we summarise the grounds of attack raised by the petitioner against the order of his reduction, we think it necessary to mention the charges which were raised against the petitioner by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer. These were as follows —
"(1) For failing to show any improvement in your working in spite of repeated bad confidential reports.
(2) For failing to improve in your dealings with the staff although this has been pointed out to you a number of times, verbally and in writing The more recent cases of this nature were conveyed to you vide this office letter No.CRF/ M/HQ/l dated 26.4.57 and Nos. 40-CON dated 3.6.57 and 29.6.57.
(3) For failing to carry out instructions issued vide this office circular No. 96M-01 dated 4.1.57 viz., you had certified that the steam pumps under your charge were in a good condition and that the only assistance you needed was some spare leather buckets. The instructions for personally checking up the steam pumps to avoid steam pump failure were re-circulated vide this office letter No. 96-M-O of 29.3.57. It was observed on 5.6.57 during my inspection of your shed that the stand by steam pump was not in a working condition and the water supply to Delhi Sarai Rohilla failed completely on the night of 17-18/6/1957 due to failure of the injector for which you did not arrange any spares for emergencies. This has affected the train operation.
The above falls under Rule No. 1708 R. (i) i.e., continued inefficiency.
(4) For remaining absent from your office on 26.6.57 and attending office at 14 00 hours on 27.6.57 on having been called for by the Divisional Accounts Officer, Bikaner, but marking presence in the Attendance Register for both these days."
It may also be noted here that the instances mentioned vide office letter No.CRF/M/H Q/i dated the 26th April, 1957, in the second sentence of charge No.2 were dropped by the Enquiry Officer.
4. We shall now mention the various grounds of attack, on which the petitioner relies, in support of his writ application.
(1) The Enquiry Committee, inasmuch as it consisted of only one member, was legally no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
