Back
Rajasthan High Court
Gupta, J.
Ram Khilari - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2577 of 1974
Decided On : May 10, 1976
Although recording of reasons, which induced competent Disciplinary Authority to hold that it was not reasonably practicable to conduct an enquiry in the manner provided in the Rules in respect of the mis-conduct of a railway employee, is mandatory for the initiation of the proceedings under Rule 14 and for dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under the Rules 9 to 13, yet it is not incumbent upon the competent Disciplinary Autho- rity to communicate such reasons to the delinquent railway employee.
The utter impracticability of the enquiry is the very basis for dispensing with an enquiry in cases coming under clause (ii) of Rule 14 of the Rules and it would therefore be extremely difficult in such circumstances to hold that the rule still postulates the holding of a summary enquiry or giving the delinquent employee an opportunity of being heard in the matter relating to the nature and quantum of punishment to be imposed upon him.
If the reasons, on the basis of which the concerned Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the delinquent railway employee had committed serious misconduct and on the basis of which the punishment of dismissal or removal from service was imposed upon him, were not communicated to the delinquent railway employee, then it would be impossible for him to make his submissions of faet or arguments in his appeal against the order passed by the concerned Disciplinary Authority. It must, therefore, be held that the concerned Disciplinary Authority was not merely bound to record reasons on the file for arriving at the conclusion that the railway employee concerned had committed serious misconduct and also for awarding punishment of removal or dismissal from service upon him, but he was also bound to communicate the same to the delinquent railway employee.
What was, therefore, required to be communicated to the railway servant concerned was, not merely a cryptic order just informing him that he was found guilty of serious misconduct and was removed or dismissed from service, but a copy of the order recorded by the competent Disciplinary Authority under clause (ii) of Rule ft. By following the procedure of communicating merely a cryptic order, the concerned Disciplinary Authority has deprived the railway employee concerned of his statutory right of presenting and prosecuting an effective appeal before the appellate authority and the right of appeal has, thereby been rendered nugatory. (Para 44, 45 & 47)
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were employed in different capacities at various places in Rajasthan in the Indian Railways and they were removed from service as a sequel to the All India Strike of Railway men, which took place in May, 1974. It is common ground that the Central Government, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it under Rule 118 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 prohibited any strike in the Railway Service in India in connection with any industrial dispute for a period of six months with effect from November 26, 1973. Several Unions representing railway employees gave notices of an All India Strike of employees working on Indian Railways which was to take effect from May 8, 1974 to ventilate the grievances of the railway employees, in respect of various matters relating to their service conditions. As the attempted negotiations failed, the strike took place as contemplated. The Discipi-nary Authority concerned, in the case of each one of the petitioners, waived the holding of a disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rules 9 to 13 of the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by passing an order under Clause (ii) of Rule 14 and orders of dismissal or removal were passed by the concerned disciplinary Authority, separately in the case of each one of the petitioners. The petitioners have now challenged in these writ petitions the validity of the aforesaid orders of their removal or dismissal from service and have alleged that the termination of their service was illegal and arbitrary and was brought about in a mechanical manner, with the sole intention to victimise them. It has further been alleged that although some of the railway employees, who were also dismissed by the Disciplinary Authorities concerned in the same manner as the petitioners, have since then been taken back in service and the orders of their dismissal were withdrawn, yet the petitioners were not given similar treatment and that the petitioners only were picked up and sacked amongst striking railway employees.
3 The railway Administration has stated in its replies that an unprecedented and grave situation was brought into existence largely affecting the economy of the country, as the movement of goods traffic including food stuffs was brought to a stand-still, on account of the illegal strike resorted to by the railway employees on an All India basis and that the petitioners played a leading role in organising the said strike and in preventing loyal staff from attending to their normal duties, by exercising coercive pressure upon them. It is alleged that the petitioners not only resorted to illegal strike by absenting themselves from their duties, but they exhorted the railway staff to participate in the illegal strike and indulged in aggressive propaganda for that purpose and threatened the loyal staff of dire consequences if they did not join the strike and thus committed serious misconduct. It is also alleged that the railway employees and their leaders were at the relevant time in a turbulent mood and no loyal employee could dare to give evidence against the petitioners for fear of their lives or of severe bodily injury and as such it was not possible to hold disciplinary enquiries in accordance with the provisions of the Rules against the erring workmen and, therefore, proceedings under clause (ii) of Rule 14 were initiated against the petitioners. It is alleged that the Disciplinary Authorities concerned considered the relevant material which was placed before them and satisfied themselves about the truth of the allegations made against the petitioners and after applying their mind proceeded to pass orders of removal or dismissal of the concerned employees and that speaking orders were passed in the case of eac
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
