- (1.) THIS is a writ application by Ramanand under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his order of reduction in rank under circumstances presently to be mentioned.
(2.) THE petitioner held the post of a Loco Foreman on the Northern Railway. He was posted at Delhi Serai Rohilla Railway Station on the 35th July, 1957. On the lastmentioned date, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, served him with a charge-sheet in connection with certain complaints arising against him. The petitioner repudiated the charges, but his explanation was not considered satisfactory, and an enquiry was ordered against him by the said officer. Shri K. N. Mathur, an Assistant Mechanical Engineer was appointed Enquiry officer. The enquiry was held from the 9th November, 1957, to the nth March, 1958. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him, except for a part of charge No. 2 to which we shall refer at the proper place, and was of the opinion that the petitioner was unsuitable for holding the charge of the responsible post of a loco foreman and submitted his report to the divisional Mechanical Engineer. The latter then issued a notice to the petitioner on the 29th April, 1958, to show cause why he should not be reduced to the post of a charge-man on a salary of rs. 350/- P. M. for a period of two years without affecting his future increments and seniority at restoration. The petitioner submitted his objections, which were overruled, and by an order dated the 12th September, 1958, he was awarded the punishment mentioned above. Against that order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Divisional Superintendent of the Northern Railway, Bikaner Division, Bikaner. This appeal was rejected on the 29th January, 1959. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up with the present writ application.
(3.) NOW, before we summarise the grounds of attack raised by the petitioner against the order of his reduction, we think it necessary to mention the charges which were raised against the petitioner by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer. These were as follows: - " (1) For failing to show any improvement in your working in spite of repeated bad confidential reports. (2) For failing to improve in your dealings with the staff although this has been pointed out to you a number of times, verbally and in writing. The more recent cases of this nature were conveyed to you vide this office letter No. CRF/m/ HQ/1 dated 26-4-57 and Nos. 40-CON dated 36-57 and 29-6-57. (3) For failing to carry out instructions issued vide this office circular No. 96m-01 dated 4-1-57 viz. , you had certified that the steam pumps under your charge were in a good condition and that the only assistance you needed was some spare leather buckets. The instructions for personally checking up the steam pumps to avoid steam pump failure were recirculated vide this office letter No. 96-M-0 of 29-3-57. It was observed on 5-6-57 during my inspection of your shed that the stand by steam pump was not in a working condition and the water supply to delhi Serai Rohilla failed completely on the night of 17-18/6/1957 due to failure of the injector for which you did not arrange any spares for emergencies. This has affected the train operation. The above falls under Rule No. 1708 R (i) i. e. , continued inefficiency. (4) For remaining absent from your office on 26-6-57 and attending office at 14. 00 hours on 27- 6-57 on having been called for by the Divisional accounts Officer, Bikaner, but marking presence in the Attendance register for both these days. " It may also be noted here that the instances mentioned vide office letter No. CRF/m/hq/1 dated the 26th april, 1957, in the second sentence of charge No. 2 were dropped by the enquiry Officer. ;