Fazl Ali, J. - (1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 1664 of 1974 and 891 of 1975 are appeals by special leave directed against the judgments of the Kerala High Court dated December 18, 1973 and the Rajasthan High Court dated January 25, 1974, respectively allowing the writ petitions filed before the High Courts by the respondents concerned. Civil Appeal No. 892 of 1975 has also been filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated January 25, 1974 with respect to the respondent Abdul Hamid whose petition was allowed by the same judgment of the High Court dated January 25, 1974, which was decided in favour of the respondent Narsingh. It would thus appear that the cases of the respondents Nursing and Abdul Hamid had been decided by one common judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan,
(2.) It was agreed at the Bar that as the points involved in all the three cases are the same, they may be disposed of by one common judgment. We, therefore, propose to dispose of all the three cases by one common judgment indicating, however the facts of each individual case, wherever necessary.
(3.) As regards Civil Appeal NO. 1664 of 1974 the respondent T. R. Chellappan was a Railway-Pointsman working at Irimpanam on Olavakkot Division of the Southern Railway. On August 12, 1972 at about 3-30 P. M. he was arrested at the Olavakkot railway station platform for disorderly drunken and indecent behaviour and a criminal case under Section 51 (A) of the Kerala Police Act was registered against him. After due investigations the challan was presented before the Sub-Magistrate, Palghat who after finding the respondent guilty instead of sentencing him released him on probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. After the respondent was released the Disciplinary Authority of the Department by its order dated January 3, 1973 removed him from service in view of the misconduct which led to the conviction of the respondent on a criminal charge under Section 51 (A) of the Police Act. The order removing the respondent from service merely shows that it proceeded on the basis of the conviction of the accused in the criminal case and there is nothing to show that the respondent was heard before passing the order. The Kerala High Court held that as the respondent was released by the criminal court and no penalty was imposed on him, therefore, Rule 14 (i) under which the respondent was removed from service did not in terms apply. The High Court accordingly quashed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and allowed the writ petition.;