V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sri Om Prakash Bindal who was removed from service as a Correspondence Clerk in the employment of the Union of India in the Western Railway, by an order dated December 22, 1978. The removal was on account of proof of misconduct against him while he was posted at Railway Station Achhnera in District Agra.
(2.) Of the four charges which were levelled against him, the first was that no payment was made to one Khyali Ram, who was employed as substitute amongst Class IV employees, for the month of August, October and November in the year 1974 and April, June and July in the year 1975. Instead, payment was made to some other persons though the amount was drawn for payment to Khyali Ram and witnessed the payment. The second charge was that even though Khyali Ram continuously worked as a substitute from November, 1973 to March 1974 Bindal did not accord temporary status to him in accordance with the Rules. In the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, after following the prescribed procedure including the recording of oral evidence in the presence of Bindal, submitted a report exonerating Bindal of all the charges. The disciplinary authority, namely, the D.S.O. however, did not agree with the Enquiry Officer in regard to the aforesaid two charges and after discussing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that both of these were fully established and that Bindal deserved to be removed from service on that account. He gave a show cause notice to Bindal proposing that penalty and, after taking into account the reply submitted by him, passed the order of removal. Bindal filed a departmental appeal before Divisional Railway Manager, Jaipur but that too was dismissed by an order of May 10, 1979. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed in this Court.
(3.) The principal submission of Sri Ravi Kant, appearing for Bindal, has been that neither of the two charges could be levelled against Bindal for under the relevant rules he was not supposed to witness any payment made to a person like Khyali Ram borne on the muster roll nor did he actually do so. The entire responsibility in the matter of payment was of the Station Master and if payment was erroneously made to some persons other than Khyali Ram for the months for which it is said to have been so made, he could not be held responsible for it so as to be charged with any misconduct. Likewise, it was not part of his duties to accord temporary status to a substitute and that head of charge also was untenable.;