Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution six petitioners in a joint petition challenge six different orders passed in respect of each of the petitioners which are annexed together in Annexure 'A and for further order restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from railway quarters No. 1270/4 Bailaspur R. S. in Madhya Pradesh in the occupation of the petitioners. The petitioners joined the Railway Administration and were employed in different positions in the Eastern Railway. The petitioners state that there were certain agitation by Loco Running Staff Association and pursuant to the said agitation petitioners were not able to dis charge their duties in tin usual manner from 29th of January, 1981 upto 24th February, 1981. That is the case of petitioners in the petition. In the affidavit in-reply, however, petitioners have stated that they were on sick leave during that period. The case of the respondents, is, that the petitioners were staff employed in the Loco Running Section of the Eastern Railway and there was an unauthorised and illegal strike from the 29th of January, 1981 causing great hardship to the people and to the movement of goods and in which the petitioners took leading parts and were parties to various violent and illegal action which resulted in the complete disruption of the Loco Running Section and in view of the nature of the agitation and conduct of the petitioners the case of the respondent's further, is, that they had to be summarily removed from service under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1968 and it was not considered by the disciplinary authority, in view of the circumstances which have been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition that u would not be reasonably practicable to hold enquiries into the matter provided under those rules therefore, the subject matter of challenge in this application and in several other applications are the several orders of removals under Rule 14(ii) of the aforesaid rules. The petitioners contend that they were loyal staff and the petitioners' conduct were not at all illegal.
(2.) I shall deal with the petitioner past record later. In the aforesaid view of the matter the removal orders were, according to the petitioners, in violation of the provision of the rules and without fulfilling the conditions precedent required for the exercise of the powers under the rules. The petitioners contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case the disciplinary authority was not satisfied and/or could not be satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiries in the manner provided under those rules. The petitioners further contend that no reasons were recorded in writing and in any event the purported reasons could not be considered to be any reason at all. The petitioners were not heard on any alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioners nor were the petitioners heard as to the nature of the punishments to be imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners further contend that there was no satisfaction and there could not have been any satisfaction, in me facts and in the circumstances of the case of the disciplinary authority that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any enquiry in the manner provided under the rules. In the premises, it was contended that the mandatory provisions for the application of those rules had not at ail been fulfilled. The reasons were not recorded. In any event, the alleged or purported reasons were not reasons at ad. There was no application of mind. The reasons were vague and the orders were passed in arbitrary manner. It was further urged that Rule 14(ii) enjoined exercise of quasi-judicial powers and such powers should be exercised by speaking orders which were not done in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents on other hand, contended otherwise.
(3.) Therefore, the main and indeed the sole question that requires to be considered, is, whether the conditions precedent as well as the conditions for the application of the said rule were present and the orders were passed in accordance with the provisions of the said rules. Indeed the question, is, whether the said orders were valid and legal. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that the alleged grounds mentioned in the orders of dismissal indicated on the face of those that it could not be said that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any enquiry in the manner contemplated by the rules. Further more, in any event the petitioners contend that the petitioners have good record of service in the past and under the provisions of the said rules the petitioners were entitled at least to be heard, assuming that the said rule could be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case as to the quantum or nature of punishment required to be imposed in this case The petitioners, further alleged that it was apparent that the decisions of dismissal were passed to terrorise and victimise the workers of the Railway Administration illegally and without application of mind and the decision were taken arbitrarily to implement certain policy decisions and not passed on the satisfaction of the proper authority The petitioners have further contended that there was a policy decision of victimisation taken by the head office at Garden Reach, Calcutta and the said several orders for removals had been passed by the Divisional Manager, Asansol pursuant to the said policy decision. The petitioners, further contended that the orders for removal from service were not passed by the appointing authority.;