The dismissal of the plaintiff from service was justified as he was found guilty of negligence, and the charges were not defective. The court emphasized that the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 allowed for dismissal as a penalty for negligence, and the principles of natural justice were observed during the enquiry.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.326 of 1989 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant and he preferred the present second appeal aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 25.04.1997 passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.No.172 of 1996, whereby the decree and judgment passed in the said suit were set aside and the suit was dismissed.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff entered into service in the Railways as Rakshak in the year 1964. During February 1978, he was under the direct control of the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Protection Force, Tuticorin and he was on duty from 16.00 hours to 24.00 hours on 24.02.1978 and on 25.02.1978 while he was handing over charge to Rakshak Rangan, there was no shortage of consignments and for this, necessary entries were made in the General Diary. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for anything happened after his duty hours. But, he was issued with a charge sheet falsely stating that a theft HAD occurred when he was on duty on 24.02.1978 and the charge was that while the plaintiff was on duty at A & B points, he failed to be vigilant in his duty hours, and as a result of which, a wagon NEBC 20205, which was boarded with 620 bags of M.O.Potash was broke open by the outside criminals and 20 bags of M.O.Potash were removed and kept within the beat limits of the plaintiff. But it is the case of the plaintiff that there was no shortage or any report of shortage by any authority. Subsequently, the Railways Administration initiated a criminal proceedings against one person, who has given the alleged confession statement, but he was acquitted by the Criminal Court. Similar charge sheet was issued against one co-worker, viz., Govindasamy, but he was able to prove that the entire charges were foisted. An enquiry was conducted in contravention of the rules of various well settled principles and the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the plaintiff was guilty of the charges and on the basis of the enquiry report, he was issued with an order of dismissal from service on 03.03.1979. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected by the appellate authority by its order dated 04.02.1988. When the authorities taken back to duty the co-worker, pursuant to an order passed in W.P.No.3980 of 1980, the authorities ought to have reinstated the plaintiff into service. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent herein for a declaration that the dismissal order dated 03.03.1979 passed by the authorities, which was confirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 09.02.1988, as unjust, improper and illegal.

3. The defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was removed from service in the year 1975 on a criminal offence registered in Madurai Railway Police Station Crime No.64 of 1968 and on appeal, he was reinstated in service from 01.11.1976. During his service, he was awarded with 10 punishments including 'removal from service'. So far as the present case is concerned, while he was on duty at Tuticorin on 24.02.1978 at A & B points, he had miserably failed to be vigilant in his duty hours and as a result of which, the wagon No.NEBC 20205, which was stabled in his beat limit, was broke open by some criminals and 20 bags of M.O.potash were removed from the wagon and the plaintiff was not aware of the same and the same was noticed by the plaintiff's reliever. Further, from the confessional statement of one of the accused by name Rathnam Asari, who was arrested in the case, it was established that the consignments were removed from the wagon in question was stabled in his beat limits and the same were removed outside. Further, the wagon at the time of unloading, was noticed with a shortage of 4 bags of M.O.Potash at Coimbatore, the destination station.

The criminal case ended in acquittal in respect of his co-worker was based on certain contradictions a