9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional Validity of Rule 148(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. 2. Constitutional Validity of Rule 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. 3. Violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Analysis: Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Rule 148(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code The appellants challenged the validity of Rule 148(3) on the grounds that it contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Rule 148(3) allows termination of non-pensionable railway servants on notice. The appellants argued that such termination amounts to "removal" under Article 311(2) and thus requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed. The court held that Rule 148(3) does not contravene Article 311(2) as it does not involve termination as a disciplinary measure. The rule differentiates between termination by notice and termination as a disciplinary measure, which requires compliance with Article 311(2). Therefore, termination under Rule 148(3) is not considered "removal" or "dismissal" under Article 311(2). Issue 2: Constitutional Validity of Rule 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Rule 149(3) was challenged on similar grounds as Rule 148(3). This rule applies to all railway servants and allows termination on notice. The appellants argued that this rule also contravenes Article 311(2) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that Rule 149(3) is valid as it does not amount to dismissal or removal as a disciplinary measure. The rule applies uniformly to all railway servants and includes a provision for termination on notice, which does not violate the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 311(2). However, the court noted that if Rule 149(3) is applied to servants who were not originally subject to such conditions, it would amount to "removal" and violate Article 311(2). Issue 3: Violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution The appellants contended that termination under Rules 148(3) and 149(3) amounts to "removal" under Article 311(2), which requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed. The court held that not all terminations amount to "removal" or "dismissal." Termination under these rules does not involve any punitive action or stigma and thus does not attract the provisions of Article 311(2). The court emphasized that termination as per the rules governing the service conditions, which do not involve any disciplinary action, does not amount to "removal" or "dismissal" under Article 311(2). Issue 4: Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution The appellants argued that Rules 148(3) and 149(3) violate Article 14 as they provide arbitrary and unguided power to terminate services, leading to unequal treatment. The court held that the rules do not violate Article 14 as they apply uniformly to all railway servants within the specified categories. The rules provide a clear procedure for termination and do not confer arbitrary power on the authorities. The court noted that the rules are framed to ensure administrative efficiency and public interest, which justify the classification and do not result in discrimination. Conclusion: The court concluded that Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code do not violate Articles 311(2) and 14 of the Constitution. The rules provide a valid procedure for termination of services, which does not amount to "removal" or "dismissal" under Article 311(2) and apply uniformly, ensuring equal protection of the laws under Article 14. The appeals challenging the validity of these rules were dismissed, and the rules were upheld as constitutionally valid.
|
