LODHA, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by him in the Court of Munsiff, Ajmer City (West), Ajmer on 22-11-1963 praying that a declaration may be granted in his favour that the order of Additional Commercial Superintendent (East), Western Railway, Ajmer dated 23-1-1961 marked Ex. A. 28. is void, illegal and ultra-vires and the plaintiff should be deemed to continue in service of the Westren Railway. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff but on appeal by the plaintiff it has been decreed. Hence the Union of Indian has come in appeal to this Court.

2. The facts necessary for decision of the points canvassed before me lie within a narrow compass and may be stated as below :

The plaintiff who was working as Ticket Collector on 23-9-1959 at Bhuj (which for the sake of brevity has been described as BVJ), is alleged to have received Rs. 17. 50 paisa from 35 Third class passengers for false reservation in Bhuj-Ahmeda-bad through coach of Train No. 247-Up-Ex-BVJ-ADI. It was further alleged that he gave Rs. 2/- out of the said amount to Tolaram, Assistant Booking Clerk to getting reservation labels prepared. However, when it was revealed before the departure of the train on complaint by some passengers that the reservation was a bogus one, the plaintiff is alleged to have returned the amount after collecting back Rs. 2/-from Tolaram to the passengers concerned. It is also the case of the Railway that the plaintiff in collusion with one A. P.Jain Assistant Station Master, Bhuj put reservation labels on the coach. A complaint having been made in this connection by the Secretary of the Transport Users Association, Bhuj, the plaintiff was charge sheeted and after having got an enquiry in matter the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Western Railway, Ajmer removed the petitioner from service by the order Ex. A. 28. The plaintiffs case is that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to him to defend himself against the charges as envisaged under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India and that there is no evidence against him to substantiate the charges. The defendant, on the other hand, has justified the impugned order on the ground that it had been passed after following the procedure prescribed by law and that the charges were established against the plaintiff.

3. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that reasonable opportunity had been given to the plaintiff inasmuch as he was supplied with copies of the enquiry report and other documents for which the plaintiff had asked. He also found that the plaintiff had admitted his guilt in his statement recorded by the enquiry officer and there was other evidence also by which the charges against the plaintiff were established. The learned Addl. Civil Judge, Ajmer, who heard the appeal from the judgment of the learned Munsiff however came to the conclusion that no reasonable opportunity had been afforded to the delinquent officer and that the enquiry was vitiated for the reason that the second notice given to the plaintiff before imposing the proposed punishment was defective.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was sufficient evidence on the record to justify the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority cannot be interfered with in the suit. It has also been argued that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff in the course of enquiry. Lastly, it has been submitted that neither the second notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, nor the order of removal passed by him suffer from any infirmity.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously urged that even if all the evidence that has been collected by the Enquiry Officer is accepted no case is made out against the plaintiff and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authorit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document