P. ARUMUGAM, FORMERLY PIPE LINE LASCAR Vs. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, MADRAS DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a plumber khalasi at Jolarpet and was in the service of the Southern Railway Madras. On 12th December, 1967 he was apprehended to have been in unlawful possession of two pieces of copper pipes and two pieces of brass said to be railway property. It is common ground that on that day of apprehension the petitioner and some others were examined and statements taken from them. On 22nd August, 1968, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner stating that on 12th December, 1967 he was seen to have concealed in his trouser pockets two pieces of copper pipes and therefore was in unlawful possession of railway property and that he was apprehended by Rakshak Sri V. Vijayadu while he was unlawfully concealing them. In accordance with the Railway Establishment Code and the rules then governing, the charge sheet was accompanied by a statement of allegations on the basis of which the charge has been framed against the petitioner. A list of documents was also noted in the statement of allegations forwarded to the petitioner and acknowledged by him on 25th August, 1968. The petitioner sent a reply after inspecting the documents given by him and the other Rakshak who was examined on the date of apprehension, but such a reply was sent only in February, 1969. It is not in dispute that after the framing of the charge as above and after the statement of accusation as required under the earlier rules of the Establishment Code was served on the petitioner, new rules were framed regarding the conduct of disciplinary enquiries and the modus operandi to be adopted in such enquiries, The new rules come into force on 1st October, 1968. It is common ground that the new rules were not adopted when the enquiry was set out in or about April, 1969. The actual enquiry is said to have taken place in September, 1969 and it is admitted that in that enquiry witnesses whose identity and names were not disclosed to the petitioner were also examined at that enquiry. After the said enquiry the petitioner was found guilty and he was removed from service. Further appeals to the appropriate authorities were of no avail and the petitioner has come up to this Court to quash the order dated 16th July 1970 passed by the Division Superintendent, Personnel Branch, Madras Division, who passed the original order of removal. Amongst other contentions which revolve on the merits which I am not inclined to notice in the view that I intend taking, the main contention is that the enquiry was conducted by the authorities in violation of the new rules which came into force on 1st October, 1968.

(2.) UNDER old Rule 1708 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, in cases where major penalties are contemplated to be imposed on delinquent railway servants, the procedure prescribed in Rules 1709 in 1715 are to be observed. Inter alia Rule 1709 provides as follows:

(3.) IN the light of such a modification in the rules of enquiry, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in the instant case, the enquiry is vitiated as it violates one or more mandates prescribed by the rules. Mr. Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the railways invites my attention to Rule 29, which provides for repeal and saving of the then existing rules and contends that as far as possible the rules in force have been observed and the procedure is not in any way tainted.