- (1.) The central question in this appeal is whether the impugned order passed by the Railway Board dated March 11, 1972 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, was not in conformity with the requirements of R. 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. At the hearing on Feb. 13, 1986, learned counsel for the Union of India took time to enable the Railway Board to reconsider its decision as to the quantum of punishment. At the resumed hearing on March 13, 1986 we were informed by the learned counsel that there was no question of the Railway Board reconsidering its decision. Arguments were accordingly heard on the question as to whether the impugned order of the Railway Board was sustainable in law. We heard the parties and allowed the appeal by order dated March 13, 1986 directing the Railway Board to hear and decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law in conformity with the requirements of R. 22(2) of the Rules. We now proceed to give reasons therefor.
(2.) The Facts. The appellant Ram Chander, Shunter, Grade B at Loco Shed Ghaziabad was inflicted the penalty of removal from service under R. 6(viii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 by order of the General Manager, Northern Railway dated Aug. 24, 1971. The gravamen of the charge was that the appellant was guilty of misconduct in that he had on Oct. 1, 1969 at 7.30 p.m. assaulted his immediate superior Banarsi Das, Assistant Loco Foreman while he was returning after performing his duties. The immediate cause for the assault was that the appellant had on Sept. 30,1969 applied for medical leave for one day i.e. for Oct. 1, 1969. On that day, there was a shortage of shunters and he accordingly asked Banarsi Das to resume his duties but Banarsi Das refused to cancel the leave already granted and therefore the appellant nursed a grouse against him because he was thereby deprived of the benefit of one day's additional wages for October 2, 1969 which was a national holiday. Apparently, Banarsi Das lodged a report with the police but no action was taken thereon. More than a month later i.e. on November 17, 1969 Banarsi Das made a complaint against the appellant to his superior officers and this gave rise to a departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Officer fixed the date of enquiry on May 11, 1970 at Ghaziabad. The enquiry could not be held on that date due to some administrative reasons and was then fixed for July 11, 1970. The appellant was duly informed of the date but he did not appear at the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer accordingly proceeded ex parte and examined witnesses. By his report dated May 26, 1971, the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved. The General Manager, Northern Railway agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and came to the provisional conclusion that the penalty of removal from service should be inflicted and issued a show cause notice dated May 26, 1971. In compliance the appellant showed cause but his explanation was not accepted by the General Manager who by his order dtd. August 24,1971 imposed on the appellant the penalty of removal from service. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Railway Board under R. 18(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 but the Railway Board by the impugned order dated March 11, 1972 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant moved the High Court by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge by his order dated Aug. 16, 1983 dismissed the writ petition holding that since the Railway Board agreed with the findings of the General Manager there was no duty cast on the Railway Board to record reasons for its decision. The appellant therefore preferred a Letters Patent Appral, but a Division Bench by its order dated Feb. 15, 1984 dismissed the appeal in limine.
(3.) Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules provided as follows :- "22(2). In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider - (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record, and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; and pass orders - (i) confirming, enhancing. reducing or setting aside the penalty: or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.";