Back
Allahbad High Court
LAKSHMIPRASAD
Debi Din - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Operating Superintendent, Northern Rly. - Respondent
Decided On : 03/29/1967
RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE - RULE 1716(2)(E) AND RULE 1731(2) - INTERPRETATION - DUTY OF PUNISHING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR DECISIONS - NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS FOR REJECTING EXPLANATION OF EMPLOYEE - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cabinman, was served with charges by the Assistant Operating Superintendent, Northern Railway, Moradabad. He submitted his explanation, but the order of punishment passed by the Assistant Operating Superintendent did not mention the reasons for not accepting the explanation and finding the charges proved. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Northern Railway, Moradabad, who rejected the appeal without giving any reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellate authority failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 1731(2) of the Railway Establishment Code by disposing of the appeal with a laconic order consisting of four words, "The appeal is rejected". The court held that Rule 1731(2) requires the appellate authority to consider the various matters enumerated in clauses (a), (b), and (c) thereof and to pass an order indicating that it has really considered these points.
Issues: Whether the appellate authority is required to give reasons for its decision in an appeal against an order imposing a minor punishment under Rule 1707 of the Railway Establishment Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 1716(2)(e) of the Railway Establishment Code expressly provides that the record of proceedings in a case in which a minor punishment is proposed to be imposed is to include the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor. The court also held that Rule 1731(2) of the Code, which provides for the procedure to be followed in the disposal of appeals, necessarily implies that the appellate authority must give reasons for its decision.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
The petitioner then preferred an appeal. A copy of the memorandum of appeal is Annexure 5. It came to be rejected by opposite party No. 1 the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Northern Railway, Moradabad by an order which is Annexure 6. It reads as below :
''With reference to your appeal dated 23-10-65 addressed to DOS (M) against the order of AOS (M) imposing the penalty of WIP for two years you are hereby informed that DOS (M1) has passed the following orders" :
The appeal is rejected."
It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed for the quashing of the appellate order reproduced above on the ground that in passing the impugned order the appellate authority, viz. opposite party No. 1 failed to comply with the requirements of the relevant rule on the point, namely, Rule 1731 of the Railway Establishment Code.
2. The petition is opposed by the opposite parties.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is admitted on all hands that the punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner in the instant case is a minor punishment being one of those provided in clauses (i) to (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1707 of the said Code. It is also not in dispute that the procedure prescribed in Rule 1716 of the Code is to be followed in the matter of imposition of a minor punishment specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 1707. Clause (e) of sub-rule 1716 provides that the record of proceedings in a case in which a minor punishment is proposed to be imposed is to include the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor. The order of punishment imposed by opposite party No. 2, as already mentioned, though mentions the counts on the basis of which punishment has been imposed omits to mention the reasons for the conclusions which is reached, namely, that the charges referred to in the order stand proved as against the explanation of the petitioner contending for the contrary. Thus it was one of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal that the order of punishment passed by opposite party No. 2 stood vitiated because of his failure to mention the reasons as required by Rule 1716.
Admittedly Rule 1731 of the Code provides for the procedure to be followed in the disposal of appeals. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1731 provides for the procedure to be followed in case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 1707. It says that in case of such an appeal "the appellate authority" shall consider :
(a) Whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with, and, if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice;
(b) Whether the findings are justified; and
(c) Whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate and after consultation with the Commission, if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass orders,
(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or
(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case;
Provided that ............ (It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to reproduce the proviso)."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite
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
