DAVE, C.J.—This is a writ application by Sudarshanlal Bajaj under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of an order dated 6th May, 1963, passed by the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Western Railway, stationed at Jaipur, whereby the petitioner was reduced from the post of Assistant Station Master to that of the Traffic Signaller for two years with future effect from 9th May, 1963.

2. The petitioners case is that he was Assistant Station Master at the Dausa railway station in the year 1962. On the midnight of 30th and 31st July, 1962, there was an incident of an averted collision at about 1.25 a.m. on Line No. 3 in front of Dausa railway station between 872 Down goods-train entering Dausa station and 5 Up Express Passenger-train entering the same station from the opposite direction. The charge against the petitioner was that he was responsible for violating certain orders at the time of reception of 5 Up and thereby endangered the safety of the travelling public, as he gave permission for lowering of signals for road (Line No.3) which was occupied by 872 Down goods-train. There would have been collision between the two trains, but it was averted as 5 Up stopped 408 feet and 6 inches short of engine of 872 Down. The petitioner denied the charge, but he was held guilty and punished as mentioned above.

3. Although a number of grounds were taken in the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only two grounds at the time of the arguments before this Court.

4. The first ground on which the impugned order dated 6th May, 1963 has been assailed is, that the Divisional Operating Superintendent had no authority to impose penalty of reducing the petitioner to a lower rank, as the petitioner was appointed by the General Manager and he alone was competent to inflict this punishment.

5. The next ground raised by learned counsel is that the inquiring officer (Shri S.N. Shukla) who was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority, was a railway employee of Class III and that the enquiry could be conducted only by a Committee consisting of atleast two gazetted officers or atleast two senior class II officers.

6. The writ petition has been contested by Shri M. D. Bhargava appearing for the respondents. It is urged that the petitioner was not initially appointed by the General Manager, but by the District Traffic Superintendent and that the Divisional Operating Superintendent held a post equivalent to that of the District Traffic Superintendent. He was, therefore, authorised to impose the penalty awarded to the petitioner.

7. With regard to the second objection it is contended that, according to r. 1710 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, hereinafter to be referred as the Code, it was not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Committee or a Board of Inquiry consisting of more than one person. It is pointed out that, according to the said Rule, it was open to the Disciplinary Authority to inquire into the charges itself or, if it considered necessary, it could appoint an inquiring officer for the purpose. According to learned counsel, Shri S. N. Shukla was a properly appointed inquiring officer and no violation of the Rule was committed.

8. It would now be proper to take up the first objection first.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place on record the first appointment order of the petitioner. He says that he could not produce the appointment order since it was never issued to his client. Learned counsel for the respondents also has not been able to lay his hands on the petitioners appointment order. He has, however, placed on record a true copy of the service-sheet of the petitioner, which shows that he was initially appointed temporarily as a signaller by a wire of the District Traffic Superintendent. He has also shown to us the personal file of the petitioner and pointed out that in the year 1958 also he was reduced in rank to a lower scale for s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document