1969 (2) TMI 176 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the General Manager's conclusion on the first charge.
2. Validity of the General Manager's direction dated June 19, 1956, under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
3. Whether an order of removal based on multiple grounds should be struck down if one or more grounds are found unsustainable.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The Court examined whether the High Court was within its jurisdiction to set aside the conclusion reached by the General Manager on the first charge. The respondent, a Trade Union worker, was accused of compelling the air compressor to shut down during a strike. The enquiry committee found the first charge not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the General Manager disagreed and found the respondent guilty. The High Court interfered with this finding, but the Supreme Court held that the General Manager was not bound by the enquiry committee's conclusions and could independently assess the evidence. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including *Union of India v. H. C. Goel* and *Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan and Ors.*, to assert that the High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the General Manager's finding, as it was supported by evidence and was not perverse.

Issue 2: Validity of the General Manager's direction dated June 19, 1956
The second issue was whether the General Manager's direction prohibiting meetings within railway premises violated Article 19(1) of the Constitution. The General Manager's circular prohibited meetings within railway premises, including open grounds. The respondent argued that this violated the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) to (c). The Supreme Court held that while freedoms under Article 19(1) are valuable, they do not include the right to exercise them on properties belonging to others without permission. The Court distinguished this case from *Marsh v. Alabama*, emphasizing that the railway premises were not open for public use like the streets and sidewalks in the Marsh case. The Court concluded that the General Manager's direction was not violative of Article 19(1) as it did not deprive the workers of their freedoms but merely regulated their exercise within railway property.

Issue 3: Validity of an order of removal based on multiple grounds
The third issue was whether an order of removal should be struck down if one of the multiple grounds is found unsustainable. The appellate court had upheld the High Court's decision on the first charge but found the second charge valid. The Supreme Court referred to *State of Orissa v. Bidyabhan Mohapatra*, holding that if an order can be supported on any substantial ground, it is not for the Court to speculate whether the authority would have imposed the same punishment based on that ground alone. The Court emphasized that the first charge was serious enough to justify the respondent's removal from service, thus sustaining the General Manager's order.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the General Manager's finding on the first charge. The Court also upheld the validity of the General Manager's direction under Article 19(1) and confirmed that an order of removal based on multiple grounds need not be struck down if one ground is unsustainable. The writ petition was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.