9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the respondent to take disciplinary action against the petitioners. 2. Validity of subsidiary rule 4 under rule 1706 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. 3. Whether the alleged misconduct of the petitioners amounts to serious misconduct under rule 1706. 4. Specific allegations and charges against petitioner 3. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Respondent: The petitioners argued that the respondent, the Divisional Superintendent of the Central Railway, had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against them for acts or omissions as members or office-bearers of the Central Railway Employees' Consumers' Co-operative Society. They contended that the disciplinary action was outside the scope of subsidiary rule 4 to 1706 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules and beyond the powers vested in the General Manager by rule 1726. The court held that it was within the competence of the Central Railway to institute disciplinary proceedings against a railway servant if any of the circumstances enumerated under rule 1706, including serious misconduct, existed. 2. Validity of Subsidiary Rule 4: The petitioners challenged the validity of subsidiary rule 4, arguing that it was not made or promulgated by the General Manager. The court rejected this contention, noting that the Central Railway Weekly Gazette dated 5 November 1956 showed that the General Manager had framed the subsidiary rule 4. The court further held that rule 1706 itself provided for disciplinary action for serious misconduct, making the subsidiary rule 4 unnecessary to discuss in detail. The subsidiary rule 4 was deemed to be for giving effect to the main rules and did not add anything to the powers already granted by the Governor-General's rules. 3. Serious Misconduct: The main contention was whether the alleged misconduct of the petitioners amounted to serious misconduct under rule 1706. The court discussed various types of misconduct that could justify dismissal, including acts prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the employer, grossly immoral behavior, habitual negligence, and others. The court referred to several cases, including Laws v. London Chronicle, Ltd., and Tomlinson v. L. M. S. Railway Company, to illustrate that misconduct outside working hours and outside the course of employment could still justify disciplinary action. The court concluded that the determination of whether the petitioners' conduct amounted to serious misconduct required a full examination of facts during the disciplinary enquiry. 4. Specific Allegations Against Petitioner 3: Petitioner 3 argued that he acted as treasurer of the society only for twelve days from 18 June 1956 to 30 June 1956 and was relieved of his duties on 1 July 1956. The chargesheet, however, referred to alleged mismanagement during the period from 1 July 1956 to 31 August 1958. The court noted that the respondent had not initially controverted this averment but later denied it in an affidavit. Since the facts were disputed, the court held that the issue should be decided during the disciplinary enquiry. Consequently, the petition of petitioner 3 was dismissed, with the court allowing him to prove his claims at the enquiry. Conclusion: The petitions of petitioners 1 and 2 were dismissed with costs, as the court found that the charges against them could potentially amount to serious misconduct, which needed to be determined through the disciplinary enquiry. The petition of petitioner 3 was also dismissed with costs, as the main fact on which his petition was founded was disputed and required determination during the enquiry. The court emphasized that it was open to petitioner 3 to prove his claims at the disciplinary enquiry.
|
