Termination of services without holding proper enquiry.

The respondent in this appeal was employed as a clerk in the Southern Railway. During the year 1950, he was required to do the duties of a Store Van Clerk in a goods train. A Store Van Clerk is usually put in charge of about 16 waggons of a train. The respondent was, as a part of his duties, to collect empty gunny bags from the stations and deliver them at the destination. On 6th April, 1950, the respondent unloaded about 300 gunny bags at a wayside station, according to him, under a mistaken impression that they were in excess of the quantity which should be taken by him to the destination. A charge was framed against him on 6th April, 1950, by the District Controller of Stores, Perambur, of having attempted to sell 300 empty gunny bags out of those collected by him from the various stations while on duty, and he was called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from service or otherwise dealt with. On 8th May 1950, he was placed under suspension. On 16th May, 1950, he submitted an explanation, protesting his innocence, and praying for a confronted enquiry. By his letter dated 7th June, 1950, the District Controller of Stores declined to hold a confronted enquiry, but stated that he was prepared to grant the respondent an interview. The respondent had the interview with the officer on 14th June, 1950. On the following day, the General Manager passed the following Order:-

“With reference to the charge-sheet No. HC/18, dated 8th May, 1950, issued to you by the District Controller of Stores, Perambur, and your reply, dated 16th May, 1950, thereto, and with reference to your interview with me on the 14th instant, I am satisfied that you are guilty of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet.

Please note that your services are not required on the Railway with effect from the forenoon of 22and June, 1950. You will be given a month’s salary in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of your service.”

Complaining that the termination of his services contravened the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution in that he was punished without a confronted enquiry in respect of the charge framed against him, the respondent instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, Madras, against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway (the appellant herein), for a declaration that the order dated 15th June, 1950, terminating his services, was illegal, and for directing the appellant to pay him a sum of Rs. 118-15-0, being the half salary and dearness allowance due to him from the date of suspension (8th May, 1950) to 22nd June, 1950, and also a sum of Rs. 5,069-9-0, being the salary that accrued due till the date of the suit. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that, as the services of the respondent were terminated by virtue of the powers vested in the Railway Administration under rule 148 (3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, there was no punishment within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and that an omission to give an opportunity to the respondent to prove his innocence would not vitiate the order terminating his services. This contention was accepted by the learned trial Judge who dismissed the suit. On appeal to this Court, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., held that the termination of the respondent’s services amounted to a punishment, and that, as such punishment was inflicted in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, the proceedings leading up to the termination of the respondent’s services were void and of no legal effect. In that view, the learned Judge decreed the suit as prayed for.

In this appeal, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the order dated 15th June, 1950, terminating the services of the respondent, should be held to be only one under rule 148 (3) and not by way of punishment. It is not seriously disputed that, if it were to be held that the termination of the services of