- (1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17. 7. 1982 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) and order dated 21. 5. 1984 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Allahabad and theaward dated 2. 3. 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Kanpur (Annexure 12 to the writ petition ).
(2.) THE facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lady Ticket Collector and was posted in Northern Railway at Allahabad. THE petitioner was a confirmed employee and there was no complaint against the petitioner. That around September-October, 1981 when the petitioner was posted at Allahabad, the A. C. S. called her several times with ulterior motive but the petitioner being an honest and a person of high integrity and of religious devotion coufd not yield to his ill desire. On 14. 10. 1981, the petitioner alongwith her two sisters went to Maiher temple and came back in the midnight of 14/15. 10. 1981 and due to the aforesaid circumstances, they had to pass the night at station and accordingly the petitioner deposited Rs. 60.00 with T. C. at the booth informing him to issue reservation ticket for Retiring Room No. 1 (Deluxe ). THE A. C. S. on receipt of this information made a plan and taking stay of the petitioner at the Retiring Room as unauthorised, reported the matter to the Divisional Com mercial Superintendent and illegally arranged a surprise checking at 4. 45 a. m. on 15. 10. 1981. Petitioner was asked about the authority of the petitioner's occupa tion. Petitioner informed that she has already deposited Rs. 60 with the ticket Collector on the booth and as he was busy in other engagements he assured the petitioner to issue a receipt then these officers visited the ticket Collector booth rooms and enquire into the matter. On 16. 10. 1981, the petitioner was suspended and on 20. 10. 1981 peti tioner was served with a memo of charge-sheet. The charge against the petitioner was that railway administration would have suffered loss of the amount with an allegation that the petitioner being a lady Ticket Collector was duty bound to know that Retiring Room can be occupied by the authorised persons on payment of due charges only. By occupying the aforesaid in an unauthorised manner she displayed lack of integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner, which is the becoming of a railway servant contravening Rules 3 (1) (II) and (III) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. On 29. 10. 1981, the petitioner submitted a tenta tive and incomplete explanation to the disciplinary authority against her illegal and malafide suspension order dated 16. 10. 1981 and against the illegal charge-sheet dated 20. 10. 1981. It has been stated in the said reply that there was no occasion for A. C. S. and Divisional Commercial Superintendent to check the Re tiring Room at early hours at 4. 45 a. m. This clearly shows the malafide and ulterior motive of the respondents. One Sri G. P. Sahu was appointed as inquiry officer to conduct the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner raised an objection by sending a letter to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, who is the dis ciplinary authority that the officer who made the surprise check on 15. 10. 1981 at 4. 45 a. m. hours in Retiring Room (Deluxe) should not hold the disciplinary pro ceedings and to nominate an inquiry officer. At least an officer over and above his rank should act as a disciplinary authority. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner raised an objection to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad that persons concerned i. e. the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and A. C. S. who were involved in the matter should not acted as a disciplinary authority. The said objection has been rejected by the Divisional Commerciaf Superintendent holding therein that appointment of Sri GP. Sahu, A. C. S. Tundla as inquiry officer was proper and regular and it has been done in accordance with Rules.
(3.) THE petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity before the inquiry officer. THE inquiry officer did not supply the relevant documents and the wit nesses to whom they rely so that the petitioner might prefer her defence accord ingly even the list of four documents mentioned in the memo of charges were not supplied to the petitioner. THE petitioner again in her reply dated 26. 6. 1982 sub mitted to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad, again reiterated her stand that the proceedings before the same authority who is involved in the matter cannot go legally and if he is permitted to proceed, action will be biased and full of revengeful spirit. Further prayer was made to supply the relevant documents mentioned in the statement of witnesses to enable her to submit her explanation. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Without affording an opportunity to provide him with necessary and relevant documents, the enquiry officer has submitted a report against the petitioner and on the basis of the ex-parte enquiry report an order was passed on 17. 7. 1982 by the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Northern Rail way, Allahabad, dismissing the petitioner from service by a non-speaking order. Even no show cause notice was given to the petitioner by supplying her a copy of the inquiry report and without giving a personal hearing. The petitioner submitted an application to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad, to provide number of documents to unable her to file an ap peal. But no documents as demanded by the petitioner were ever supplied. On 6. 9. 1982, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 17. 7. 1982. In the meantime a suit was filed in the Court of Munsif at Allahabad and injunction order was granted and subsequently the suit was withdrawn and in view of the aforesaid fact, the earlier appeal is treated as null and void and the petitioner was asked to file another appeal which would be deemed on merits vide Divisional Railway Manager's Order dated 21. 3. 1983. Then again, the petitioner filed an appeal on 13. 4. 1983. For the proper adjudication of the appeal the petitioner again demanded the copy of the proceeding together with the report of the inquiry officer and an application was submitted on 9. 4. 1994 but the Divisional Railway Manager vide order dated 25. 8. 1994 has dismissed the petitioner's appeal.;