- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of IV Additional District Judge, Deoria on 22-8-1983 in Original Suit No. 78 of 1979, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for decla ration to the effect that removal/dismissal order, dated 25-9-1975 passed by Railway Board is illegal and the is still continuing in the service of the defendant as Assistant Medical Officer.
(2.) PLAINTIFF was appointed, on 25-5-1958 as Assistant Surgeon, Grade I in North Eastern Railway and was promoted to the post of Assistant Medical Officer Class II on 7-9-1971. Charge sheet was served on him by the General Manager, North Eastern Rail way, Gorakhpur followed by disciplinary proceeding on the charge that he absented himself without leave from duty from 29-10-1967 to 31-1-1971. Another charge was also framed against him to the effect that the plaintiff resorted to private practice at Deoria in between January 1968 to 31-1-1971 in contravention of the Rules. Sri A. K. Ray, Commissioner for Departmental En quiry was appointed as Inquiring Officer by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway. He enquired into the matter and on the basis of his report the plaintiff was removed from services by the Railway Board by its order dated 25-9-1975 with effect from 12-11-1975 when the said order was served on him. In the suit the plaintiff has chal lenged the order of removal/dismissal main ly on the ground that the order of removal was in breach of Article 311 (2) of the Con stitution, in violation of principles of natural justice and various Service Rules governing his employment. The learned Judge after framing 12 issues held the trial. His finding is that there was no infringe ment of Rules, principles of natural justice and provisions of the Constitution and, ac cordingly, he has dismissed the suit. Amongst the issues framed by the learned Judge, during appeal, issue Nos. 1 and 8 have been vehemently challenged, which are as follows: Issue No. 1: "whether the dismissal or removal of the plaintiff whole of the enquiry proceedings passed or held against the plaintiff are violative, without competence, ineffective and null and void aoid as alleged in para 6 of the plain t ? If so, its effect. " Issue No. 8: "to what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"
(3.) SRI H. S. N. Tripathi, appearing for the appellant has challenged the entire proceeding including the order of removal by stating, inter alia, that no copy of the document relied on by the railway authority was given during Inquiries and that the pro cedure followed in submitting the report by Inquiring Officer directly to the Railway Board through Central Vigilance Commis sion, who recommended for major punish ment, the decision taken by one member of the Board without concurrence of the Rail way Board and that no opportunity of hear ing before the Railway Board was given to the appellant. Taking first point into consideration whether the appellant was entitled to the copy of the documents, during inquiry proceeding, it appears that the learned Judge has held that the plaintiff was unable to show any Rule under which a railway servant in entitled to the copies of the relevant documents. Rule 9 (5) of the Rail way Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 has made provision that railway ser vant may, for the purpose of preparing his defence, inspect and take extracts from the documents. In the note it appears that if the railway servant applies in writing for the supply of copies of the statements of wit nesses mentioned in the list of the discipli nary authority shall furnish him with a copy each of such statements as early as possible. There is no allegation with regard to the supply of the copy of the statement of the witnesses. The allegation is that while preparing his defence the appellant was not supplied with the copies of the documents relied on by the railway authority. The trial judge referring Ext. A-2 and also referring the order dated 28-9-1972 passed by the Inquiring Officer has held that since the appellant had inspected all the documents and did not want to inspect any other addi tional document and since he received the copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation which is apparent from the signature of the appellant at the margine of the order- sheet and his admission as P. W. 1, there was suffi cient compliance of the Rules. Ext. 9 is the letter of the appellant for supplying copies of the relevant documents as, according to him, inspection of documents or taking ex tracts thereof would not be sufficient unless copies were made available to him. There is no denial that there was no inspection of the documents or he was not allowed to take notes of them. Rule does not provide supply of the copy of any document and if the said procedure was observed and if facility avail able according to Rules was accorded to the plaintiff I agree with the learned trial judge that there was no infringement of Rules and hence no adverse finding is required to be made in this respect.;