PREM CHAND JAIN, J. - (1.) The General Manager Northern Railway and others have filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated May 8, 1975, by which C.W. P. No. 3932 of 1972 filed by Harhans Singh respondent was allowed and orders copies Annexures 'F' and 'H' to the petition, were quashed.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy certain salient features of the case may be noticed.
(3.) Harbans Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') was recruited in the Railway Protection Force in 1961, and in July, 1969 he was posted at Bhatinda. On July, 1969, he was deputed to escort a goods train from Bhatinda to Jakhal and when the train reached Maur, the respondent notices some defect on the seal of a wagon attached to the train at that station. In order to bring the defect to the notice of the officer on duty, the respondent went to look for him, but in the meantime the train steamed off leaving him behind at Maur railway station. The respondent than caught a bus and reached Mansa where he was noticed travelling in a passenger train by Shri Ujagar Ram, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force The respondent's case is that he had travelled in the bus to the railway level crossing and when he found the passenger train standing, Shri Ujagar Ram met him and questioned him about his presence near the passenger train. It appears that the explanation offered by the respondent did not satisfy Shri Ujagar Ram and he made a report against him, which ultimately led to his being charge-sheeted. An enquiry into the conduct of the respondent was held by the Circle Inspector, who after examining the witnesses produced by the parties, submitted his report. On the basis of that report a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent calling upon him to explain why he be not removed from service. On a consideration of the reply filed by the respondent. the Assistant Security Officer, imposed on him the punishment of withholding one increment for one year permanently. It seems that the higher authorities were not satisfied with the punishment imposed and a notice was issued to him to show cause why the punishment should not he enhanced. The respondent filed a reply to that notice which was not found satisfactory, with the result that an order removing the respondent from service was passed, a copy of which is attached as Annexure 'F'. The respondent filed an appeal but without any success. Consequently, the respondent filed C. W. P. No. 3932 of 1972 for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order of direction quashing the orders, copies Annexures 'F' and 'H'. The petition was contested on behalf of the appellants. After going through the entire matter, the learned Single Judge found the two orders unsustainable on the following grounds:- 1. That the order of the Chief Security Officer, copy Annexure 'H' is bad as respondent's previous record of service was taken into consideration though the adverse entries had not been conveyed to him, nor had any charge been framed in respect of those entries. 2. That in the show-cause notice proposing to enhance the penalty already awarded (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition) no mention was made of the fact that the charges in respect of which the respondent had been exonerated were to be re- considered and the only information that was conveyed to the respondent through that notice was the it considering the gravity of the offence a severe punishment was proposed to be inflicted. 3. That the Security Officer erroneously mentioned that the Circle Inspector had held the respondent guilty of all the charges or that he (the respondent) had made a confession in respect of those charges.;