J.K.Tandon, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition by one Kailash Nath Seth who is employed in a permanent capacity as Trains Clerk in one of the offices of the Northern Railway administration. The following facts are necessary for a correct appreciation of the matters in dispute.
(2.) The petitioner was employed, according to him, in a permanent capacity in the office of the Superintendent Printing & Stationery, U. P. prior to his appointment in the Railway administration. There is some controversy as regards the petitioner's claim that he was a permanent employee under the State Government in the Office of the Superintendent Printing and Stationery as the respondent Railway has not admitted the fact in so many words, but this may not detain us in this petition as the relief with which this particular allegation is concerned is being granted on agreement of the parties as shall ultimately appear. The petitioner joined the Railway administration on 9-7-1943. In due course a release order by the Superintendent Printing and Stationery, U. P. was also made in his case with the result that his services thereafter were placed at the disposal of the Railway department. A copy of the release order shows that his lien in the Printing and Stationery Department had been continued. The next fact is that in January, 1952 the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Trains Clerk under the Railway administration which made it necessary to refix his salary in accordance with the rules applicable to him. It was in this matter, that is, the relaxation of his salary, that differences arose between him on the one hand and the staff of superior officers of the office in which he was employed on the other. According to the petitioner since he claimed to be a permanent employee in the Printing and Stationery Department his services rendered in that Department required to be counted in granting him increments in fixing the initial salary as Trains Clerk. The Railway officers did not see eye to eye with him and it seems that a series of representations and demands for interview etc., started. It is unnecessary for the same reason namely, that the relief in regard to refixation of his salary is being granted on the consent or parties to state further details in that behalf; suffice to mention that the fixation done by the officers of his department was Rs. 73/- while according to him it should have been Rs. 84/-.
(3.) While this controversy was continuing between him and his office staff, he complained to the Divisional Superintendent. The exact words as stated by him in this connection are thus : "I am appealing to your goodself since long; but I am not getting any satisfactory reply and on previous occasions I have also sought for a personal interview with your honour; but I do not know why the same has not yet been granted to me. Therefore I have no way but to see you outside the office, and I apprehend that my case has not been put up to your honour by the personal branch." As might be noticed this contained an insinuation to the effect that although lie had been representing repeatedly the lower staff had failed to put up the case to the Divisional Superintendent. The respondents do not dispute the fact that an interview took place in this manner between the petitioner and the Divisional Superintendent as appeared from para 17 of the counter-affidavit, but it is added on their behalf that at the time of receiving the complaint the Divisional Superintendent warned the petitioner that if his above allegation was not found to be correct severe action would be taken against him and that the petitioner accepted this condition. The Divisional Superintendent then asked the papers to be put up to him by the Divisional Personal Officer. After perusing that record be directed a charge sheet annexnre 'D' dated 26-7-1,956, (it was actually issued on 6-8-19561 to be served upon the petitioner. It will be worth while to quote in brief from this document : "You are hereby required to submit your explanation for which you are given three clear days from the date of receipt of this notice for making fake statement before the Divisional Superintendent, Allahabad, while making over your representation dated 24-5-1956 that although papers were called for by him on your original application they had not been put up for months and when told that severe action would be taken against you if this statement was found incorrect you accepted it. On examination of papers your statement is found to be false and to show cause why the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year temprarily or any lesser penalty under the rules Regulating Discipline and Rights of Appeal of non-gazetted railway servants should not be imposed on you.";