Anil Kumar Sinha, J.@mdashThis Rule was obtained by the petitioner for quashing an order of reduction in rank (Annexure ''M'' to the petition). The petitioner who was permanently employed as a Carpenter in the scale of Rs. 110-180j- was suspended from his service on 3rd January, 1966. On 4th January, 1966, he was served with a charge-sheet as follows:
That on 3-1-66 at about 8-20 hrs. you threatened H.T.E.R. Sri P. K. Deb who was enquiring into your shouting near the C. & W. Dept. Stores of NJP. This amounts to gross misbehaviour and insubordination.
Then again, on 11th March / April, 1966, a second charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as follows:
That on 3-1-66 at about 8.30 hours while on duty you created disturbance nice the carriage Sick Line of N.S.P. This amounts to gross misconduct.
2. In this charge-sheet the petitioner was directed to show cause in writing within seven clear days from the date of the receipt against the penalty specified in item 6 which runs thus:
Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders.
The petitioner then asked for supplying him a copy of the findings of the previous proceeding held on 21-22nd March, 1966, to enable him to furnish an explanation as asked for. On 27th April, 1966, the respondent No. 5 asked the respondent No. 6 to hold an enquiry on fresh charge issued under item 6 and the petitioner was asked to submit three names for defence counsel. The petitioner, however, by his letter of 1st May, 1966 reiterated his demand for the copy of the findings of the previous enquiry which was not supplied to him. It is alleged, on the competition of second enquiry held on 10th June, 1966^ a second show cause notice was issued against the proposed penalty of reduction of the petitioner in rank. The petitioner, however, on receipt of the notice asked the disciplinary authority to supply the copies of the relevant records of the previous proceeding but without doing so on 11th November, 1966, the respondent No. 5 passed a final order reducing the petitioner in rank to the lowest post of Carpenter.
3. On 4th January, 1967, the petitioner preferred an appeal but, it is alleged no order regarding this appeal was communicated to the petitioner in spite of his reminder. That is how, in short, the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.
4. In this case, it appears that the copy of the report of the Enquiring Officer was not sent to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice. Even the report of the Enquiring Officer was not also disclosed in the long affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Basu, however, under the direction of the Court supplied from the original records copy of the report of the Enquiring Officer consisting of the history of the case, findings and reasons for findings and also the copy of the deposition of the petitioner given during the enquiry on the first charge-sheet.
5. This Rule may be disposed of on a short point. From the report of the Enquiring Officer it appears that there was no finding on evidence on the charges under the second charge-sheet levelled against the petitioner. The respondent''s specific case is as stated in paragraph 10 and 21 in their affidavit-in-opposition that the previous proceeding, of the enquiry was cancelled and "no reference or reliance on the same was made in the fresh proceeding." But the findings of the Enquiring Officer on the second charge-sheet is that "the Caipenter Biswanath is obstructive and insubordinate worker and as he has refused to reply to this charge-sheet and he is determined to stick up to his previous statements, question and answers where he himself agreed on question No. 7 that he is at fault he may be taken up severely according to the charges brought against him". Such being the findings of the Enquiring Officer it is quite clear that he relied on the previous proceeding which according to the respondents themselves stood cancelled and also on admission in the so called previous proceeding of the petitioner that he was at fault.
Without any finding on independent evidence on the actual charges against the petitioner he recommended the petitioner to be taken up severely. In fact, there was no enquiry into the charges at all except that it is said that the petitioner himself admitted his guilt in the previous enquiry proceeding which is as already cancelled clearly, irrelevant and extraneous. Even assuming that the petitioner did not submit any explanation or appeared at the enquiry proceeding it was still obligatory upon the Enquiring Officer to come to a finding on proper evidence on the charges framed against the petitioner.
6. In my view, the impugned enquiry proceeding has been conducted with a bias and really ended in empty formalities. This apart, on mere admission charges cannot be held to have been established. In Jagdish Prosad v. State of M. B., AIR 1961 S.C. 1070, Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) stated the law on this aspect as follows :
The departmental enquiry is not an empty formality; it is a serious proceeding intended to give the officer concerned a chance to meet the charge and to prove his innocence. In the absence of any such enquiry it would not be fair to strain facts against the appellant and to hold that in view of the admissions made by him the enquiry would have served no useful purpose.
Such being the law, in my view, the entire enquiry proceeding and the report of the Enquiring Officer in the instant case suffer from serious infirmities and cannot be sustained as valid. That being so, the further proceeding culminating in the order imposing penalty of reduction of the petitioner in rank must be held to be equally invalid.
Then again, the'' proceeding commencing from the second show cause notice resulting in the impugned order of penalty of reduction in rank were also not valid because of the fact that the copy of the enquiry report of the Enquiring Officer was not sent to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice. Such failure on the part of the disciplinary authority has resulted in contravention of the rule 1715(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1, with the consequence that the impugned order of reduction of the petitioner in rank was made without giving him reasonable opportunity to defend his cause.
7. Mr. Basu, however, on behalf of the respondents has raised a point that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending no relief can be given to the petitioner in this Rule. It is difficult to see why, although there was no injunction from this Court, the appeal could not be disposed of during about four years'' time. This again shows breach of statutory duty on the part of the disciplinary authority. For sheer negligence on the part of the appellate authority in disposing of the appeal within a reasonable time the reliefs sought for by the petitioner has been rendered nugatory. In any case, the appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding and it is well settled that a writ in the nature of prohibition may lie if the proceeding or orders complained of is made in excess of or without jurisdiction or on failure to exercise such jurisdiction or there has been violation of rules and principles of naturlal justice. See
8. Mr. Dhole, however, raised several other points, namely, that (i) the charge-sheet was not accompanied by statement of allegation, (ii) that the charges are vague, (iii) that the show cause notice was directed against the proposed penalty -and not against the charges. I do not think there are much substance in these points for even if there be certain irregularities they are not such as would vitiate the charges or show cause notice served upon the petitioner. The petitioner also did not appear to have raised any objection regarding these matters at any stage of the proceeding. For the reasons, however, already given the entire disciplinary proceeding from the stage of the enquiry culminating in the order of reduction of the petitioner in rank and the entire proceeding in appeal are quashed.
The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above but there will be no order as to costs.
Let writs in the nature of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus issue accordingly.
