- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of Amiya Kumar Mookerjee, J. dated september 2, 1974 whereby the connected rule as also the other rules heard analogously were made absolute. The petitioners in these rules challenged the orders (Passed during the all india strike of the railway men in May, 1974) removing them from service in the railways. The relevant facts are as follows : by an order dated May 25, 1973, the central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 118 of the defence of India Rules, 1971 prohibited any strike in connection with any industrial dispute in the Railway services in India for a period of six months with effect from 26th November, 1973. According to the petitioners different federations and Trade Unions representing majority of Railway men gave notices of an All India Railway Strike to take effect from 06. 00 hours of May 8, 1974 in consequence, it was alleged, of the failure of the protracted attempts for settlement of the legitimate and pressing demands of railway men about their wages, duty hours, dearness allowance, bonus, supply of foodstuffs at fair prices and abolition of casual labour. While negotiations were continuing, a large number of leaders of trade Unions of Railway men were suddenly arrested throughout the country and put into prisons at the instance of the railway authorities. The strike commenced on May 8, 1974 and the railway administration at the instance of the Ministry of Railways by adopted a policy of reckless victimisation on railway men by taking recourse to repressive measures like arrests, large scale dismissals, penal transfers, termination of service and compulsory retirements of thousands of employees. The constitutional protection under the railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Rules were thrown overboard, and the petitioners in this appeal who were supervisors of various ranks working in various capacities in the railway administration as Head Draftsman, Shop superintendent, Chargemen at Lilluah, eastern Railway and one of them j. N. Rao posted as Asstt. Shop Superintendent at Head Quarters, Eastern railway, by orders purported to be under Rule 14 (ii) of the Rules passed on may 16, 25 and 27, 1974 were removed from service without issuing any charge-sheet or holding any inquiry.
(2.) THE petitioners contended that the said orders were passed malafide for victimising the petitioners and without any application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The conditions precedent for dispensing inquiry were absent and there was no honest and bonafide decision based on satisfaction of the disciplinary authority' on objective consideration that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry provided in the rules. There was no recording of reasons in the impugned orders for the satisfaction of the authority about the reasonable impracticability of holding the enquiry which was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 (ii) and Article 311 (2)of the Constitution. The orders were not a speaking orders and stultified the appeal which could be filed by the dismissed railway servants. It was also incumbent on the authorities to refer to and deal with the circumstances of each case as also the source and nature of information which only could form the basis of the order. Such order was accordingly passed for collateral purpose on extraneous considerations. Though the disciplinary authority was required while acting under Rule 14 (ii) of the rules to function in a quasi-judicial capacity, it failed to observe even the basic norms of natural justice and fair play in passing the impugned orders (without hearing the aggrieved persons before they were condemned ).
(3.) ON these allegations and contentions the petitioners moved this Court by an application under Article 226 (1)of the Constitution and on this application a rule was issued calling upon the Union of India and the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway the disciplinary authority who passed the impugned orders, to show cause why the impugned orders of removal should not be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari and whir a writ of mandamus should not issue forbearing the said authorities from giving effect or further effect to the said orders.;