B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS is directed against a notice directing the petitioner, a railway servant, to show cause why he should not be reduced in rank from the post of a tracer to that of a peon, for a period of three years. The circumstances leading to the issue of the notice are hereinafter briefly stated.
(2.) ACCORDING to the affidavit -in -opposition, filed by the respondents, the petitioner was appointed, in the year 1946, as a peon, on a pay of Es. 12 per month, in the railway unit, then known as the B.A. Railway. He was subsequently promoted as a record -supplier, with effect from 1 February 1947, In the scale of pay of Rs. 17 -25 and was posted at Kanchrapara. From there he was transferred to Lumding, on 27 August 1947, but as there was no vacancy at that time at Lumding, the petitioner was directed to report to the Transfer Office/India. This being the time of partition of India, considerable confusion was prevailing. The petitioner, it Is said, took advantage of the confusion and when he was transferred to the Eastern Railway unit, he was, on representation by him, posted as a tracer at Asanscl division, on 15 October 1947, in the scale, of pay of Rs. 60 -150. On 13 January 1948, in reinforcement of his representation, the petitioner is said to have made a false declaration to the effect that he was a tracer in the B.A. Railway. On that representation, a new service -sheet was opened for the petitioner, because the old service records and flies had not still then been received from the B.A. Railway administration. When, later on, the old records arrived, it was detected that a part of It, relating to the period of the petitioner's service at Lumding and thereafter, was missing. Armed with the information, derived from the petitioner's service records, that declaration made by the petitioner was false, the respondent, Divisional Personnel Officer, suspended the petitioner on 9 May 1960, and thereafter served this petitioner with a chargesheet, couched in the following language: You are charged with the following offences or failures and you are hereby called upon to show cause why you should not be punished with the penalty specified in item 6 of the list below or punished with any of the lesser penalties specified in the said list. The facts and/or circumstances whereon the charges has/have been based are as related below: * * *Charges For serious misconduct in that: On 13 January 1948 you have made (?) a wrong declaration in the office of D.S./A.S.N. stating that you are a substantive holder of the post of tracer In the scale of Rs. 30 -60 In the existing scale although you had never worked in the said capacity en 1 January 1947, i.e., the date from which you elected to come under the prescribed scale. On the basis of this declaration your pay was fixed as a tracer in the prescribed scale of Rs. 60 -150 although from records it is Been that you were working as a record -sorter and your pay was due to be fixed In the prescribed scale of Rs. 40 -60. * * *List of penalties. Removal from service. On receipt of the chargesheet, the petitioner asked for copies of the following documents in order to enable him to submit his explanation: (i) True copy of the declaration as alleged to have been filed by me before D.S./A.S.N. together with other connected documents. (ii) True copy or copies of documents and/or evidence relied upon by your good -self in framing the chargesheet. (iii) Copy of the full text of enquiry notes, report and evidences in connexion with enquiry some one year back wherein I was made to appear on verbal instruction. (iv) Copy of my original service -sheet, history -sheet, etc., those wore maintained by the ex -B.A. Railway administration since my appointment originally in 1946, (v) Copies of documents, those have been considered by your goodself to come to the finding that a prima facie charge is there to connect me with an offence of serious misconduct as mentioned in the chargesheet.
(3.) THE respondent -Divisional Personnel Officer thereupon asked the petitioner to have Inspection 'of the documents, on 21 June 1960, at the forger's office. The petitioner, however, did not accept the offer to take inspection. He insisted upon copies, of the documents being given to him, which request, however, was not complied with. The petitioner does not appear to have submitted his explanation to the chargesheet.;