- (1.) These two petitions involve common questions of fact and law and may be conveniently disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) V. N. Chaubey is working as Guard Grade C, in the North Eastern Railway. His contention is that his appointing authority was Chief Operating Superintendent and the Divisional Commercial Superintendent is subordinate in rank to his appointing authority. He claims to be under the administrative control of the Chief Operating Superintendent and not under the administrative control of the Divisional Commercial Superintendent. While working as Guard Grade C, at Gonda the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 21-9-1970 (Annexure 2) issued by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and by this charge sheet he was informed of the proposal to hold an enquiry against him under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is further alleged that the Divisional Commercial Superintendent appointed Sri P. K. Takru as the inquiry officer to investigate the charges levelled against the petitioner V. N. Chaubey and the inquiry proceedings were conducted against him by Sri P. K. Takru. On 11-3-1972 V. N. Chaubey was served with a notice under rule 10 (5) of the Rules to show cause why he should not be dismissed/removed/compulsorily retired from service (Annexnre 5). V. N.Chaubey challenges validity of this show cause notice and prays that the same may be quashed by certiorari on the ground that the Divisional Commercial Superintendent was not competent to act as disciplinary authority and the appointment of the inquiry officer and the show cause notice were invalid.
(3.) The position in the other petition is identical. The case of Arjun Singh is that he was initially appointed as an Assistant Guard in 1948 by the erstwhile Oudh Tirhut Railway. He was subsequently absorbed on the North Eastern Railway and his contention is that he is uuder the administrative control of the Chief Operating Superintendent and not the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and that his immediate controlling officer is the Divisional Operating Superintendent. He disputes that the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, opposite party No. 2, bad any administrative control over him. The Chief Operating Superintendent was his appointing authority. On 12.11.1969 a charge sheet was issued by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, and served on the petitioner informing him of the proposal to hold inquiry against him in respect of certain charges which accompanied the notice (Annexure 7). Sri B. P. Tewari, Assistant Commercial Superintendent, was appointed inquiry officer by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent who held an inquiry against him. Subsequently, Sri R. K. Mullick and K. B. Lal were appointed inquiry officers against Arjun Singh by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to Arjun Singh by the Chief Commercial Superintendent proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service. Copy of this notice is Annexure 11 of that petition. In this case also the appointment of an inquiry officer by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and the show cause notice issued by the Chief Commercial Superintendent have been questioned on the ground that neither the Divisional Commercial Superintendent nor the Chief Commercial Superintendent had administrative control over Arjun Singh and, therefore, they could not exercise power either of appointing authority or a disciplinary authority. Arjun Singh also, therefore, prays for quashing of the charge sheet dated 12.11.1969 (Annexure 7) and the show cause notice dated 26-10.1972 (Annexure 11).;