RAJ KUMAR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, prayer has been made to quash Annexure Rs.3' dated the 2nd Aug., 1967 by which the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Dinapore (Respondent no. 3) has ordered removal of the petitioner from service and Annexure Rs.10' dated the 5th Feb., 1968, by which the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapore (respondent no. 2) has dismissed the appeal.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed under the Railways as a Ticket Collector in Grade II and was promoted in 1963 to the post of Travelling Ticket Examiner, Grade II- The petitioner was posted at Moghalsarai junction on the 11th Dec., 1964, as Conductor Travelling Ticket Examiner in charge of two tiers third class sleeper coach forming part of the rake of 6 Down Amritsar-Howrah Mail. On the same date, the officers of the Special Police Establishment. Lucknow Division, organised a trap on the basis of anonymous complaints accusing the Railway staff of demanding and receiving illegal gratifications for the allotment of berths in the sleeper coach. The raiding party organised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'D. S. P., S. P. E.) came to the platform at the time of the arrival of Down Amritsar-Howrah Mail, and one of the constables named Brij Raj Singh approached the petitioner for a seat in the mail. It was alleged that the petitioner demanded some extra money from the constable for allotting a seat to him, whereupon the constable handed over two G. C. notes of Re- 1.00 to the petitioner who accepted the said two G. C. notes of Re. l/- each. Immediately after that, the D.S.P.S.P.E., caught hold of the petitioner's hand and brought him down on the platform where his left hand was dipped in a solution of water prepared in a glass consisting of sodium carbonate and the colour of the water turned into pink which proved that the petitioner had caught hold of the G. C. notes. All these facts are admitted. A regular police case was instituted by the D.S.P.S.P.E., which ended with final form in favour of the petitioner leading to his discharge by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Lucknow. On the basis of the preliminary report submitted by the D.S.P.S.P.E. the petitioner was suspended which was finally revoked on the 1st June. 1965. However, Mr. Alim, D.S.P., S.P.E. ultimately submitted a report for taking a regular departmental action against the petitioner. The petitioner was required (a) to state whether he desired to be heard in person, (b) to furnish the names and addresses of the witnesses if any, whom he wished to call in support of his defence, and (c) to furnish a list of documents, if any, which he wished to produce in support of his defence. The memorandum, which is a show cause notice, a copy of which is Annexure Rs.1' to the writ application, contained allegations on which enquiry was proposed to be held. The statement of charges framed against the petitioner was :

(3.) Mr. Alim, D.S.P.S.P.E Brij Rai Singh Chauhan. constable. Mr. D. R. Gupta. Inspector, Central Excise, who was picked up by the raiding party to act as an independent witness, and Mr. D.P. Kuerrel. Inspector of Income Tax. Special Survey Circle, Varanasi, who was also picked up by the D.S.P.S.P.E to act as an independent witness, were examined on behalf of the Railways in support of the allegation and were cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, examined Sri Ramji Prasad Singh, Mukhia, Sri Kumarjee and Sri Ram Prakash, besides himself, in his defence. The Board of Inquiry, after a consideration of the circumstances of the case, as alleged by the D.S.P.S.P.E. and the defence of the petitioner as well as on scrutiny of the statements of the various witnesses of both sides, held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Dinapore, agreed with the findings of the Board of Inquiry and provisionally came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service. Therefore, he gave notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service, enclosing a copy of the findings and reasons for findings of the Board of Inquiry.