B S RATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has come to this Tribunal against the order of removal imposed after departmental proceedings. THE brief facts of the case is that the applicant was initially engaged as an Apprentice Motorman in February, 1965 and was subsequently absorbed as Motorman on 16.3.1969. THE applicant was served with a charge memo dt. 18.12.1992. THEre were three articles of charges, the first one is that during the period from 1965 to 1980 the applicant committed gross misconduct as he failed to intimate to his department about inheritting a landed property, bearing Plot No. 650, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bombay in his own name from his Grand Father which was gifted to him in the year 1947. THE second article of charge is that during the period from 1969-1980 committed gross mis-conduct in as much as he without informing or without obtaining prior permission from his Department constructed a building known as "Rath Mansion" on the aforesaid plot, which building consisted 13 flats. THE applicant acquired 10 of the said 13 flats in aforesaid building in his own name without the knowledge of his Department. THE third article of charge is that during the period from 1971-1980 the applicant, without obtaining prior permission of his department sold/disposed of 10 of the 13 flats to private persons for monetary consideration by signing sale agreements in the capacity of the Builder of the said building. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and after due inquiry an order of removal was passed, an appeal against the same was also dismissed. Hence, this O.A.

(2.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that as per the Enquiry Officer's report all the three Article of Charges were found established. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and after consideration of the evidence and the reply of the applicant found that the Article No. 1 of the Charge was found not substantiated. However, according to the Disciplinary Authority the other two Article of Charges were found established and so the order of removal from service was passed. The Reviewing Authority, however, was of the view that Article 1 of the Charge was also established. The submission is that the basic rule which has been allegedly contravened by the applicant is Rule 18(l)(a) and (2) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (in short, Rules of 1966). The applicant, it is submitted, is not covered under Rule 18(1). On the other hand, relying on the Govt. Publications the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that Note-I below Rule 18 (1) is in respect to 'Group-D' and not Class-III.

(3.) WHETHER the applicant has or has not violated Rule 18(1) of Rules of 1966 is the question for consideration. The learned Counsel for applicant submitted that Rule 18(1) is not applicable to Class-III Railway Servants. The learned Counsel produced before us a photocopy of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 which, according to the applicant, was printed in All India Services Manual. In this photocopy Note-1 below Rule 18(1) exemption is for "Class-III" Rail way employees. If the photocopy of the rule as produced is seen, it will mean that Sub-rule 1 which requires Railway Servant on his first appointment to submit a written return of his assets and liabilities in respect of immovable property inherited by him would not be applicable in respect of Class-III employee unless it is specifically directed that it shall apply to Class-III Railway Servants also. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, produced the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume 1, 5th Edition 1985 printed by the Government of India Press and published by the Controller of Publications, New Delhi in the year 1986. It contains the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 as Appendix-I, wherein the word used in Note-1 is "Group 'D' and not "Class-III".