- (1.) The Petitioners are two clerks employed in the (Sic) he deputy mechanical engineer (shops), Kanchrapara. application they are questioning the validity of to order (Sic) a passed upon them on January 2, 1951. The facts (Sic)s follows: In the latter part of 1960, the administration of the East Indian Railway (now the Kastorn. Railway) had occasion to suspect that some of its employees were currying on an illicit trade in the unlawful selling of railway privilege passes to outsiders. The matter was referred to the Special police establishment of the Government of India who started investigation.
(2.) On December 27, 1950, a letter was received by the General. Manager, E.I. Railway, from the superintendent of police, special police establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to the effect that on December 16, 1950, Subodh Ghakravorty, a clerk working in the pass section of the office of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Shops), Kanchrapara, was caught red-handed in a test purchase, while he made over a third-class valid foreign-pass for 3 1/2 persons for the journey from Kanchrapara to Rameswaran and back in the name a railway employee without his knowledge, for an illegal remuneration of Rs. 60. The Petitioners, together with another clerk, were alleged to be guilty of complicity in the offence. A case had been started against the guilty persons under Sections 409/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and it was requested that they might be placed under immediate suspension. 0n January 2, 1951, the Respondent passed an order placing five persons, including the Petitioners, under suspension with effect from January 3, 1951, until further orders. It was clearly stated that the order had been made on the basis of the report received from the superintendent of police, mentioned above. It is not disputed that the suspension order had been passed under Rule 1711 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules (Non-gazetted) as contained in Chapter XVII of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I. It is, however, a question to be decided as to whether it was passed under Sub-rule (a) or (b). I shall presently, revert to It.
(3.) On July 21, 1951, the Petitioners were served with summons issued by the Special Judge, Alipore, to answer a charge of having committed an offence under Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code, Teal with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947).;