ORDER

S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order removing the petitioner from service as a Ticket Collector in the employ of the Central Railway. The petition was amended during the pendency of the case, of which fact a detailed mention will be made hereafter. The petitioner has made the following allegations in his affidavit in support of the petition.

He was employed on the date of the incident which led ultimately to his removal, as a Ticket Collector at Mathura Junction on the Central Railway. He was appointed as a clerk in 1948. On 6-9-1955 he was on duty at Mathura Junction Station. On that date the incident in dispute happened as a result of which he was charged with two offences -- first, that he assaulted a parcel porter called Nathi, and secondly, that he made certain false allegations accusing the Assistant District Commercial Inspector of having uttered threats against him.

In his affidavit the petitioner gave no details of the incident or his version of it. But he alleged that he was served with a charge-sheet a copy of which he filed as annexure 'A' to his affidavit. He also made the grave allegation that the Officer conducting the enquiry was the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Jhansi who happened to be "a close relation" of the Assistant District Commercial Inspector who was an interested party in the case as the petitioner was charged with the offence of having hurled false accusations against this Inspector.

The petitioner states that this man would have got into trouble if his (the petitioner's) case against him was found to be true. The Enquiry Officer therefore, was interested in protecting the interests of his own relations. He deliberately avoided giving the petitioner opportunity to defend himself during the proceedings. The petitioner states, by way of illustration, that no information was sent to the petitioner as to when the alleged enquiry was made (presumably this is a reference to the preliminary fact-finding enquiry as a result of which the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet).

The petitioner further alleges that, even after the service of the charge-sheet, his requests for being supplied with relevant information and copies of the record were deliberately refused. He also alleges that difficulties were placed in the way of his conducting his defence effectively. For example (according to him) he had obtained the consent 08 one B. S. Ramaswamy, a conductor guard on the same railway, to be his defence "counsel" during the enquiry. He sent a formal request that Ramaswamy be given facilities as provided by the rules to enable him to function as defence counsel but the request was refused by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent.

This "obstruction", as the petitioner calls it, was placed in his way with the "special ulterior object that the applicant may not have the services of the suitable defence counsel". The petitioner had no choice but to select another person, one Mrs. Varma, as his defence counsel but as he was not relieved he too could not defend the petitioner. All this was done in defiance of the rule and with the object of depriving of all opportunity of defence. The petitioner alleges that he was not given time to nominate a third defence counsel with the result that he, to use his own words, "had to go undefended at the enquiry."

He further states that, during the enquiry itself he asked for certain relevant records and papers but his request was turned down. He was materially prejudiced, in the absence of defence counsel and relevant papers, and could not properly cross-examine the witnesses. It is further alleged by him that one of his witnesses, B. R. Rudra, who had earlier made a report of the incident supporting the petitioner's version, was threatened and served with a charge-sheet, with the result that he changed his version at the enquiry and gave a statement favouring the prosecution.

The Officer hol