9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. 2. Requirement of giving reasons by the appellate authority. 3. Applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the impact of the Forty-Second Amendment. Summary: Issue 1: Compliance with Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 The central question was whether the Railway Board's order dated March 11, 1972, dismissing the appellant's appeal, conformed to Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The appellant, a Shunter, was removed from service for misconduct by the General Manager, Northern Railway, on August 24, 1971. The Railway Board, in its impugned order, mechanically reproduced the phraseology of Rule 22(2) without marshalling the evidence or showing due application of mind. The Supreme Court held that the Railway Board's order lacked compliance with Rule 22(2), necessitating a fresh hearing and decision on merits. Issue 2: Requirement of giving reasons by the appellate authority The judgment emphasized that the duty to give reasons is an incident of the judicial process. Citing R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the appellate authority must consider whether the procedure was followed, whether the findings were warranted by evidence, and whether the penalty was appropriate. The impugned order by the Railway Board failed to show an objective consideration or application of mind, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the Railway Board to pass a reasoned order after affording a personal hearing to the appellant. Issue 3: Applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the impact of the Forty-Second Amendment The judgment discussed the changes brought by the Forty-Second Amendment to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which eliminated the requirement of giving a second opportunity to the delinquent servant to show cause against the proposed punishment. The Court noted that after the amendment, the requirement of holding an inquiry and giving a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the initial stage remained, but the safeguard of making a representation at the second stage was removed. The Court highlighted the importance of a reasoned decision by the appellate authority, especially after the constitutional changes, to ensure fair play and justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Delhi High Court and the Railway Board, and directed the Railway Board to hear and dispose of the appeal afresh on merits by a reasoned order in conformity with Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, within four months.
|
