Case Summary: Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Case Stats
(1963) 12 SC CK 0016
Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No: Civil Appeals Nos. 711–713 of 1962; Civil Appeal No. 714 of 1962
Date of Decision: 05-12-1963
Bench: Full Bench
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Gajendragadkar, J; N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J; M. Hidayatullah, J; K. Subba Rao, J; K. N. Wanchoo, J; K. C. Das Gupta, J; J. C. Shah, J
Final Decision: Allowed
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=268788
All Citations
AIR 1964 SC 600; (1964) 2 LLJ 467; (1964) 5 SCR 683
Facts of the Case
Multiple railway employees, including Moti Ram Deka and others, challenged the validity of Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I. These rules allowed termination of services of permanent (non-pensionable and later all) railway servants by notice or payment in lieu of notice. The appellants argued that such termination without following Article 311(2) safeguards amounted to removal from service and violated constitutional protections. Various High Courts had dismissed some petitions and allowed others, leading to these consolidated appeals before the Supreme Court.
Law Points Raised
1) Whether termination under Rules 148(3) or 149(3) amounts to 'removal' within Article 311(2).
2) Whether such rules violate constitutional protections afforded to civil servants.
3) Whether the employer’s contractual power to terminate can override constitutional safeguards.
4) Distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive removal.
5) Applicability of Article 14 and 16 to such termination provisions.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
• Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I — Rules 148(3), 149(3)
• Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16, 309, 310, 311
• Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 — Rule 5
• Various historical Government of India Acts provisions related to civil services
Judgments Referred
• Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. (1954)
• Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1958)
• Relevant precedents on termination vs dismissal
Obiter Dicta
The Court observed that constitutional safeguards for civil servants cannot be nullified by contractual terms or service rules. A rule permitting termination of a permanent servant without inquiry undermines the constitutional guarantee under Article 311(2).
Ratio Decidendi
Rules 148(3) and 149(3), allowing termination of permanent railway servants by notice without inquiry, amount to removal from service and violate Article 311(2). Such termination is not termination simpliciter but a form of removal, attracting constitutional protection.
Final Ruling
The appeals by employees were allowed. Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code were declared unconstitutional to the extent they permitted termination of permanent railway servants without following Article 311(2) procedures.
Summary
This landmark case held that permanent railway servants cannot be terminated by mere notice or pay in lieu of notice under service rules. Such action amounts to removal and requires compliance with Article 311(2). The decision strengthened constitutional job protections for government servants.
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=268788