- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Railway Board and the General Manager of the northern Railway against the order of a Single Judge accepting petition filed by the respondent Niranjan Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution and setting aside an order of the General Manager removing Narinjan Singh from service which was upheld by the Railway Board in appeal.
(2.) THERE seems to be no doubt about the fact that Narinjan Singh, a permanent servant of the Northern Rail' way of several years' service, was prominently engaged in trade Union activities and on the 7th of November 1953 he was served with a charge sheet alleging serious misconduct. The first charge was that he was instrumental in forcing the shutting down at about 8. 15 A. M. on the 31st of May 1956 of tie 2500 e. f. m. air compressor in the Fast Compressor House adjacent to the Blacksmith shop causing thereby disruption in the working of the C. and W. Shops, Alambagh, Lucknow. The second charge was that on five occasions, which are listed, he had contravened the orders, issued under the General Manager's letter dated the 19th of June 1956 by participating and addressing meetings held outside the Main Time Office of the C. and W. Shops on the mornings of the 23rd and 25th cf June and the 24th, 25th and 27th of July 1956. Three officers of the railway, Mr. T. C. Chadda, President, and Mr. N V. Murthy and Mr. M. P. Bahadur, were appointed to hold the enquiry and as a result of the proceedings held on three dates In January 1957 they drew up and submitted their findings for the consideration of the General Manager to the effect that they did not consider the first charge relating to the shutting dnwrt of the air compressor to be established beyond all reasonable doubt, but that Narinjan Singh had contravened the order by participating and addressing the meetings regarding which tie was charged.
(3.) ON the 26th of March 1957 Mr. M. K. Kaul, General Manager, recorded an order [annexure 'c' to the writ petition) to the effect that he had read through the enquiry proceedings and he agreed with the view of some officer described as the d. G. M. (P) who apparently recorded a note in the meantime that the evidence was incomplete, tie therefore sent the case back to the Enquiry Committee for further consideration after recording the evidence of some more witnesses and also further examining an Electrical Chargeman whose examination appeared to be incomplete.;