DAVE, C.J. —This is a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by one Shyamnarain Sharma challenging the validity of the order of his dismissal from service dated the 27th April, 1962.

2. It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner was Ticket Collector in Western Railway and was posted at Jaipur in 1961. The Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Western Railway, Jaipur, gave him a charge-sheet dated 31st August, 1961 together with a statement of allegations. It was alleged against him that he had illegal relations with one Smt. Savitri Devi and that he abducted her from Ajmer on 24th March, 1961. It was next alleged that he left the headquarters on 16th and 24th March, 1961 and also absented himself on 25th March, 1961 without prior permission of the competent authority. The third allegation was that he travelled without ticket on 16th, 24th and 25th March, 1961 by trains which ware mentioned in Ex.-l. The Divisional Commercial Inspector, Jaipur, was appointed Inquiry Officer and he submitted his report on 12th March, 1962. It was reported by him that the first two charges were proved. On receipt of this report, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Jaipur, served the petitioner with a notice Ex. 3 to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The same authority passed an order of the petitioners dismissal on 27th April, 1962. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Superintendent (E), Western Railway, Jaipur, but that was also dismissed in August, 1962.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on no evidence and that his dismissal was wholly illegal and in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the application is not maintainable. It is pointed out that the petitioner was given no less than five opportunities by the Inquiry Officer, but he did not care to be present before him and so the Inquiry Officer had so proceed ex parte. It is argued that, under the circumstances, this Court should refuse to interfere in the matter. In support of his argument, learned counsel has referred to Major U. R. Bhatt vs. Union of India (1).

5. It is next urged that the petitioner is not correct when he says that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on no evidence. It is pointed out that the petitioner was examined by one Vigilance Sub-Inspector, Jaipur, on 3rd June, 1961 and that the petitioner had in his statement admitted all the charges which were levelled against him. This document was before the Inquiry Officer and so he examined only one witness Shri R. K. Sharma, S.O.G.R.P., Phulera, on 22nd February, 1962 and submitted his report.

6. We have carefully gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 12th March, 1962 (Ex. 2). It covers two and a quarter foolscap sheets and it may be pointed out that in almost two sheets he has only taken care to point out how the petitioner was absent on four out of five dates which were fixed by him for purposes of inquiry. After pointing out that there was no alternative for him, in view of such an attitude on the part of the petitioner except to proceed ex parte, it was observed by him as follows : —

"As per the statement, in original, dated 22nd February, 1962 of S.O. GRP.-FL, it is clear that the accused has abducted Smt. Savitri Devi, sister of Shri Salig Ram on whose wire they were detained at FL by 2 Dn. of 24th March, 1961. From the statement of the S.O. GRP.-FL and the duty performed by him on 24th March, 1961 at JP from 0/8 hrs., it is proved that he left the headquarter without permission. No evidence is forthcoming in which Shri Shyam Narain, Ticket Collector, can be proved having travelled without ticket."

7. It would appear from the extract which has been quoted above that the Inquiry officer based his findings on the statement of S.O. GR

Click Here to Read the rest of this document