G.S.Lal, J. - (1.) This special appeal arises out of a writ petition relating to a service matter. The appellant Lajpat Rai Malhotra was Grade I Clerk in the Divisional Accounts Office, Lucknow. On 26-12-1958 a report was made to the Divisional Accounts Officer, Lucknow (respondent No. 4.) alleging wrongful withdrawal of Rs. 258 93 P. by Malhotra. By an order dated 8-1-1959 (of which copy is Annexure 1 to the writ petition) the appellant was suspended by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (respondent No. 2). Thereafter a charge-sheet was served on the appellant on 4.5-1959 by respondent No. 4, copy thereof being Annexure 2 to the writ petition The enquiry however started on 21-7-1961 after more than two years. The enquiry was held by a committee of three members appointed by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer Northern Railway (Respondent No. 1 who was the appointing authority of the appellant The Committee submitted its report dated 2 .11-1962 holding that the charge of serious misconduct in the form of defrauding the Railway Administration to the extent of the amount mentioned above by producing a faked requisition after re-audit of unpaid wages was proved. Respondent No. 1 then issued a show cause notice oil 14-9-1963 to the appellant who submitted his explanation. However respondent No. 1 dismissed the appellant from service as per communication date. 18-4-1966 sent to the appellant The appellant preferred d an appeal but the same was dismissed on 6-9 1966 of the General Manager. Northern Railway Respondent No. 3). The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari the order of suspension and the orders leading to his dismissal be quashed.
(2.) The writ petition was contested by the opposite parties to it. Several contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition. One was that the charge-sheet had not been issued by a proper authority That contention was however not accepted by the learned Single Judge. Another contention was that the order of suspension could have been passed only by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer and not by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. That contention was also repelled. The third contention related to the enquiry itself The petitioner's case was that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself inasmuch as certain documents necessary for his defence were not given to him or produced before the enquiry. This case .Iso did not find favour with the learned Single Judge There was then the plea that the punishing authority had failed to record its finding on each charge as required by Rule 1713 of the Railway Establishment Code. The learned Single Judge held that though there was no compliance with rule 1713 that by itself did not, on the facts of the case entitle the petitioner either to have the show cause notice or the dismissal order struck down.
(3.) The last contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that the appellate authority did not comply with the previsions of Rule 1713 (2) of the Railway Establishment Code under which it had to consider whether the procedure prescribed in the rules had been complied with and if not, whether the non-compliance had resulted in violation in any provisions of the Constitution or any failure of justice and whether the finding'. were justified and also whether the penalty imposed was excessive, adequate or inadequate. The appellate authority had disposed of the appeal with only one sentence, namely. "I find no grounds for modifying the punishment given by F A. and Chief Accounts Officer, which will stand". Further the petitioner had asked for personal hearing in his appeal but the same not been allowed nor any reason recorded for not allowing it. The learned Single Judge found that the appellate authority had not recorded anything to show how the order was confirmed by it and it had also not given personal hearing without even disclosing any reason for not allowing it. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed in part and the appellate order contained in annexure 28 to the writ petition was quashed with the direction that the appeal be decided afresh in accordance with law and having in view the observations made in the body of the judgment.;