A.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) This Rule was issued for quashing both minor penalty of withholding increment of petitioner's salary and also of petitioner's stoppage of increment and major penalty of removal from service in a disciplinary proceeding. Briefly, the facts set out in the petition are as follows: The petitioner was permanent employee of Eastern Railway. He was a labourer attached to the office of the Head Train Examiner, Ranaghat. While working in this capacity, on 27th May, 1963, the Joint Head Train Examiner, Ranaghat suspended him under verbal order of the Divisional Superintendent on the basis of a complaint made by one G. K. Pal, Inspector of Works. On 27th June, 1963 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway as follows: "You had demanded some paint red lead from 10W/RHA at about 14.00 hours on 25th May, 1963 who expressed his inability to give you the same. Subsequently when he was going away from his office at about 9-30 hours (P.M.) on the same date you not only used filthy language but also threatened him as alleged by him."
(2.) Pursuant to this, the petitioner prayed to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer for supplying certain information to enable him to prepare his defence which was refused. On 10th August, 1963 the petitioner submitted an explanation denying charge. An enquiry committee was constituted which after enquiry submitted a report with a finding that the charge against the petitioner was not established. Then by a notice dated April 30, 1964 the petitioner was allowed to resume his duty immediately.
(3.) On 11th May, 1964, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer again issued a letter upon the petitioner stating that the petitioner was guilty of the charge and imposed minor penalty withholding his next increment for a period of two years. Thereafter, on 25th May, 1964 the petitioner received another notice of May 19, 1964 issued by the Divisional Superintendent Eastern Railway directing the petitioner to show cause why on review of the disciplinary proceeding his punishment should not be enhanced to 'removal from his service'. As against this the petitioner could not, owing to his illness, submit an explanation within the time allowed. The petitioner was, however, held to be guilty of the charge leading to serious misconduct and was removed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but without any effect. That is how he felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.;