ORDER

J.S. Trivedi, J. - Disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner while he was holding the post of Assistant Permanent Way Inspector North Eastern Railway. A charge sheet under the signature of Assistant Engineer (West). Lucknow with the designation of disciplinary authority was given to him. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is the true copy of the memorandum accompanying the charge-sheet. A detailed explanation to the charges denying the allegations was made by the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed a personal hearing. The Divisional Engineer appointed Assistant Engineer (East) Lucknow Junction as the Inquiring Officer. The Inquiring Officer submitted his report on 16th of February. 1970. A show cause notice Annexure 7 to the affidavit was then given by the Divisional Engineer proposing the punishment of removal from service.

The petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid show cause notice. On the ground that (1) the punishing authority has not given its independent finding on each charge and the show cause notice, therefore. violates sub-clause (5) of Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and (2) the appointing authority of the petitioner was Chief Engineer Gorakhpur and the show cause notice by the Divisional Engineer is bad on that account. The opposite party has contested the claim and has contended that the show cause notice does not violate Rule 10 of the Rules. It is further contended that the rules envisage two distinct authorities, appointing authority and the disciplinary authority and the procedure and the action unto the stage of show cause notice under the rules can be taken by the disciplinary authority His contention is that the final order of dismissal or removal only is envisaged by the appointing authority who will be the dismissing authority. Rule 6 enumerates the penalties and removal from service is described as major penalty at Item (viii). Sub-clause (2) to Rule 8 authorises the disciplinary authority to initiate proceedings against any railway servant for the imposition of any of the major penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent to impose the said penalties. Rule 9 prescribes the Procedure for imposing major penalties. R. 10, sub-clause (5) (i) (a) reads as under:-

"If the disciplinary authority. having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of sub-rule (1) of R. 6 should be imposed on the railway servant. it shall-

(a) furnish to the railway servant a copy of the report of the inauiry held by it and its findings on each article of charge, or where the inquiry has been held by an inquiry authority, appointed by it, a copy of the report of such authority and a statement of its findings on each article of charge together with brief reasons for its disagreement, if any. with the findings of the inauiry authority." The show cause notice Annexure 7 given to the petitioner is as under :-

"Shri Ram Dularey. A. P. W. I/Aishbagh. son of Shri Jagdeo is informed that the Officer appointed to enauire into article of charges framed against him has submitted his report. A copy of the report of the enquiry officer is enclosed."

2. On a careful consideration of the report and in particular of the conclusion reached in respect of the articles of charges framed against Shri Ram Dularey. A P. W. I./Aishbagh. son of Shri Jagdeo. the undersigned agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and holds that the article of charges is proved. The undersigned has. therefore, provisionally come to the conclusion that Shri Ram Dularey. A. P. W. I./Aishbagh, son of Shri Jagdeo is not a fit person to be retained in service and that he should be removed from service of A. P. W. I. Shri Ram Dularey