- (1.) This appeal was brought after obtaining from the High Court a certificate under Articles 132 and 133(1) (c) of the Constitution. Before formulating the points arising for decision, it would be convenient to set out the necessary facts.
(2.) The respondent was holding a permanent post in the Northern Railway. He was a Trade Union worker. On November 7, 1956 a charge-sheet was served on him levelling two charges against him. Under the first charge, he was accused of having been instrumental in compelling the air compressor being shut down at about 8-15 A. M. on May 31, 1956. Under the second charge he was accused of having contravened the direction given by the General Manager, Northern Railway as per his letter No. 961/E/O (Evi) dated June 19, 1956 by addressing meetings within the railway premises on June 23, 1956, June 25, 1956, July 24, 1956, July 25, 1956 and July 27, 1956. On these charges he was called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from service under Rule 1708 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I or punished with any lesser penalties specified in Rule 1702. After receiving his explanation an enquiry committee consisting of three officers was appointed to enquire into the charges. The said committee came to the conclusion that the first charge was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt but he was guilty of the second charge. The Disciplinary Authority i. e., the General Manager remitted the case back to the enquiry committee for submitting a fresh report after examining the witnesses mentioned in his order. Even after examining those witnesses the enquiry committee adhered to its earlier conclusions. After examining the reports of the enquiry committee, the General Manager as per his order of May 25, l957 accepted its finding on the second charge but differing from its conclusion on the first charge tentatively came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of that charge as well. As a result thereof he ordered the issue of a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The respondent submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. The General Manager did not accept his explanation and by his order of August 20, 1957 he directed that the respondent be removed from service. The respondent challenged that decision before the High Court of Punjab by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Single Judge of the High Court who heard the petition opined that the General Manager was not right in holding on the material on record that the first charge is established and on the second charge he held that the General Manager's direction as per his letter of June 19, 1956 is void as being violative of Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution. On appeal the appellate court upheld the conclusion of the learned Single Judge on the first charge but it was unable to accept his finding that the order of the General Manager of June 19, 1956, was violative of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. All the same it affirmed the decision of the learned Single judge with these observations: " It is now a generally recognised principle that where an order such as an order of detention or removal from service is based on a number of grounds, and one or more of these grounds disappear it becomes difficult to uphold the order when it is not clear to what extent it was based on the ground found to be bad."
(3.) The findings of the learned Single Judge as well as the Judges of the Appellate Court were challenged before us by the appellant. It was urged on its behalf that the finding of the General Manager on the first charge being a finding of fact, the same not having been held either not supported by any evidence or as perverse, it was not open to the High Court to review the evidence afresh and come to a conclusion of its own. It was further urged on its behalf that the opinion of the Appellate Court that if one of the several charges on the basis of which a punishment is imposed is held to be unsustainable, the punishment imposed should be set aside as it is not known whether the authority in question would have imposed the impugned punishment without that charge having been established, does not represent the correct legal position as expounded by this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent not only supported the conclusions of the Appellate Court, he also strongly commended for our acceptance the finding of the learned Single Judge that General Manager's direction contained in his letter of June 19,1956 was violative of Articles 19 (1) (a) to (c).;