9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Union of India is a necessary party in an application under Article 226 challenging an order of removal from service. Detailed Analysis: The appellant, an employee of the Northern Railway, was removed from service and filed an application under Article 226 in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the removal. The trial court rejected the application for not impleading the Union of India as a necessary party. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed this decision, citing previous court rulings. The appellant argued that the General Manager, as the authority handling removal matters, should be the appropriate party, relying on past cases like Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Ahmad Syed Isak & Ors. and Observer Publications Pvt. Ltd. v. Railway Board. However, the Court emphasized that the Union of India represents the Railway administration, and any order affecting the removal would ultimately impact the Union, making it a necessary party in such cases. The Court highlighted that the appellant, being a servant of the Union, challenged an order that directly affected the Union itself. Any decision on the removal would bind the Union, not just individual servants like the General Manager. The Union of India, through its various servants, conducts administration activities, including appointments and removals. Therefore, any order setting aside the removal would impose liability on the Union, justifying the High Court's decision to consider the Union as a necessary party in the application under Article 226. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's ruling, dismissing the appeal and ordering each party to bear their own costs.
|
