- (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order removing the petitioner from service as a Ticket Collector in the employ of the Central Railway. The petition was amended during the pendency of the case, of which fact a detailed mention will be made hereafter. The petitioner has made the following allegations in his affidavit in support of the petition. He was employed on the date of the incident which led ultimately to his removal, as a Ticket Collector at Mathura Junction on the Central Railway. He was appointed as a clerk in 1948. On 6 -9 -1955 he was on duty at Mathura Junction Station. On that date the incident in dispute happened as a result of which he was charged with two offences - first, that he assaulted a parcel porter called Nathi, and secondly, that he made certain false allegations accusing the Assistant District Commercial Inspector of having uttered threats against him. In his affidavit the petitioner gave no details of the incident or his version of it. But he alleged that he was served with a charge -sheet a copy of which he filed as annexure A to his affidavit. He also made the grave allegation that the Officer conducting the enquiry was the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Jhansi who happened to be "a close relation" of the Assistant District Commercial Inspector who was an interested party in the case as the petitioner was charged with the offence of having hurled false accusations against this Inspector. The petitioner states that this man would have got into trouble if his (the petitioners) case against him was found to be true. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, was interested in protecting the interests of his own relations. He deliberately avoided giving the petitioner opportunity to defend himself during the proceedings. The petitioner states, by way of illustration, that no information was sent to the petitioner as to when the alleged enquiry was made (presumably this is a reference to the preliminary fact -finding enquiry as a result of which the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet). The petitioner further alleges that, even after the service of the charge -sheet, his requests for being supplied with relevant information and copies of the record were deliberately refused. He also alleges that difficulties were placed in the way of his conducting his defence effectively. For example (according to him) he had obtained the consent of one B. S. Ramaswamy, a conductor guard on the same railway, to be his defence "counsel" during the enquiry. He sent a formal request that Ramaswamy be given facilities as provided by the rules to enable him to function as defence counsel but the request was refused by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent. This "obstruction", as the petitioner calls it, was placed in his way with the "special ulterior object that the applicant may not have the services of the suitable defence counsel". The petitioner had no choice but to select another person, one Mr. Varma, as his defence counsel but as he was not relieved he too could not defend the petitioner. All this was done in defiance of the rule and with the object of depriving of all opportunity of defence. The petitioner alleges that he was not given time to nominate a third defence counsel with the result that he, to use his own words, "had to go undefended at the enquiry." He further states that, during the enquiry itself, he asked for certain relevant records and papers but his request was turned down. He was materially prejudiced, in the absence of defence counsel and relevant papers, and could not properly cross -examine the witnesses. It is further alleged by him that one of his witnesses, B. R. Rudra, who had earlier made a report of the incident supporting the petitioners version, was threatened and served with a charge -sheet, with the result that he changed his version at the enquiry and gave a statement favouring the prosecution. The Officer holding the enquiry did not permit the petitioner to confront B. R. Rudra with the aforesaid earlier statement contained in a diary maintained by him. This was done because the Assistant Commercial Superintendent was interested in the Assistant District Commercial Inspector and did not permit any matter to be brought on the record which might prove injurious to the aforesaid Inspector. The petitioned also states that the Assistant Commercial Superintendent was the chairman of the Enquiry Committee. At the conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner a copy of which has been filed as annexure E to his affidavit. In response to this notice the petitioner wade a request for copies of the evidence and of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, but the respondent refused this request. A copy of the letter of the authorities containing the refusal has been filed as annexure G to the petitioners affidavit. He further alleges that though handicapped and deprived of a reasonable opportunity of making a proper explanation, he did send a reply to the show cause notice, which is filed as annexure H to his affidavit. In it the petitioner alleged that the Assistant District Commercial Inspector, P. T. Manjre, had persuaded one of the porters under him to file a false complaint against him (the petitioner). He also alleged that this P. T. Manjre was related to the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, who under the influence of Manjre sent an adverse report against the petitioner. He also complained that the Enquiry Committee which investigated the charges against him included the Assistant Commercial Superintendent Sri Moholkar though this officer was related to the Inspector Manjre whose interest in the enquiry was adverse to that of the petitioner. He alleged that the enquiry against him was not free from bias or prejudice and violated all canons of justice. In support of this grievance, he cited the following acts and omissions of the Enquiry Committee. (1) They put undue pressure on a railway employee by the name of B. R. Rudra, one of the witnesses supporting the petitioner, that he should not support him and when Rudra hesitated he was transferred to Bina. The pressure, however, continued to be exerted against him with the result that Rudra made a complete somersault and went back on his own previous statement made in the preliminary enquiry and "told a heap of lies" against the petitioner. (2) The petitioner was not given any opportunity or facility for engaging a defence counsel. (3) He was not supplied with copies of the statements of witnesses, the report of the fact -finding committee, and other relevant papers. He, therefore, contended in his reply to the show -cause notice that he could not be removed from service.
(2.) ON 19th May, 1956 the Divisional Commercial Superintendent passed an order rejecting the petitioners explanation and removing the petitioner from service with effect from 21st May 1956. He was informed that an appeal lay against the order of removal to the Chief Commercial Superintendent. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his removal which was rejected on 9th July 1956. Aggrieved by the order of removal the petitioner filed the present petition which was admitted on 23rd October 1956 by V. D. Bhargava, J. It is necessary at this stage to make a few comments on the allegations made by the petitioner in support of his case. He alleged, in effect, So his affidavit that the enquiry against him was a farce because the dice was loaded against him by the inclusion of Mr. Moholkar, "a close relation" of the Inspector Manjre, who was deeply interested in the result of the enquiry, be being the petitioners principal accuser, and against whom the petitioner had made serious allegations. In paragraph after paragraph of his affidavit the petitioner alleges how this relationship weighed heavily against him throughout the enquiry. In paras 7 and 8 he states that "the Enquiring Officer was to protect the interest of his own relation" and "deliberately therefore avoided giving of opportunity to the applicant during the period of enquiry". In paragraph 9 he alleges that the copies of the record were deliberately refused to him. In paragraph 10 he complains that he was completely disabled in his defence. In para 13 he alleges that "obstruction was placed" in his way of obtaining defence counsel "with the special ulterior object that the applicant may not have the services of a suitable defence counsel." In para 17 he asserts that "the enquiry was completed with the greatest prejudice to the applicant." In para 18 he alleges that the members of the Enquiry Committee did not permit him to confront the witness Rudra, who according to him had changed sides during the enquiry, and to confront him with his previous statement recorded in his diary which contradicted his subsequent statement. The reason for this refusal, according to the petitioner, was "that the Assistant Commercial Superintendent (Mr. Moholkar) who was chairman of the Officer Committee was interested in the Assistant District Commercial Inspector and did not permit matter to be brought on record which would prove "injurious to the said Inspector". In ground No. 5 of his petition the petitioner states: "(5) Because in any event of the case as the applicant had no opportunity and the enquiry was made by a person interested against the applicant the enquiry was a complete farce and the applicant had no opportunity to avail of the protection guaranteed under the Constitution and thus the order of removal is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in law."
(3.) IT is thus clear from the petition and the affidavit that the allegation that Mr. Moholkar, one of the members of the Enquiry Committee, was related to the Inspector Manjre and deliberately fouled the proceedings with the object of shielding his relation was the foundation of the petitioners case. On the faith of this allegation, this Court admitted his petition and issued notice to the respondents.;