Sinha, J. - (1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner was appointed in 1929 as an Assistant Station Master and was subsequently promoted to the post of a Station Master. While he was posted at the Palari Station, on or about 20-3-1954, he was served with a charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was signed by the District Traffic Superintendent, Nainpur. A copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure "E" to the petition. Substantially, the charge that the petitioner had on more than one occasion, in spite of warning, indulged in impertinence and unnecessarily rude and disrespectful language in official correspondence. Instances of such use have been set out in the charge-sheet itself. The first extract for example, shows that he was writing to the District Traffic Superintendent, assuming the title of "Legal Pandit", stating that this title had been, "bestowed upon him by Sriman G.S. Rajan'. who was no other than the District Traffic Superintendent himself. There are several other extracts in which words have been indiscriminately used, without observing the restraint and decorum that should be observed in correspondence between persons in subordinate employment and their higher officers. Charges have been recklessly advanced against superior officers of having assumed "dictatorship", and of having been prejudiced? against him in order to take revenge.
(2.) The petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner questioned the authority of the opposite party No. 2 in issuing the charge-sheet and the legality of the charges and refused to submit any explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry committee was set up. The petitioner was offered every reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The petitioner refused to take any part in the enquiry or to produce evidence, The enquiry was consequently concluded on 24-4-1954. For safety's sake, the Chairman of the enquiry committee issued a notice on 10-5-1954 giving another opportunity to the petitioner to be present. But lie again refused to take part in the proceedings. In the circumstances, the enquiry committee proceeded with the enquiry ex parte. The Chairman of the: enquiry committee also took the precaution of sending a telegram to the petitioner that the enquiry was being proceeded with in his absence. To this, the petitioner sent a telegram to say that he would take no part in the enquiry. The report of the enquiry committee went against the petitioner and on 24-9-1954 the General Manager issued a second show cause notice upon the petitioner asking him to show case why the proposed penalty of removal from service should not be inflicted upon him. The petitioner made a representation, and after hearing him the order of removal from, service was made, on 28-12-1954 by the General Manager. Under the Railway Establishment Code and the relative Rules, an appeal lies against the order but the petitioner did not file any appeal. This application has been made challenging the validity of the order of removal on various grounds, but I think that two preliminary points ought to dispose of this application. Firstly, on the facts as have been presented before me, and' are admitted, I am myself of the opinion that the petitioner was not fit to be employed by the Railways and should have been dismissed. In fact, the General Manager of the Railway has inflicted a lesser punishment. The writing of the letters, extracts wherefrom have been set out in the-charge-sheet, are not denied. It is argued before me that some of them have been written under great provocation. To start with, there is no evidence of provocation. Even assuming that there was provocation, it cannot justify the writing of such letters by subordinate employees to their higher officers. If this is to be allowed, there-would be an end to all discipline, and the administration of the Railways cannot go on. It is-a well-established principle of law that a Court of Equity ought not to interfere with the orders of inferior tribunals or bodies, if, on the facts, it |is itself of the opinion that the order made was correct and is in accordance with the justice of I the case. Applying this principle, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
(3.) The second point which is equally fatal is that the petitioner did not appeal against the order of the General Manager, although an appeal lay. It is equally well-established that where an adequate alternative remedy lies, then, unless very good reasons are shown, an application for a writ will not lie. These two points completely dispose of this case.;