9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Proof of Misconduct 3. Authority of the Disciplinary Officer Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The primary issue was whether the Kerala High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the respondent. The appellants contended that no part of the cause of action arose within Kerala, as the order of removal was served at the respondent's last known address in Madras. However, the learned single Judge held that the cause of action partly arose in Kerala since the respondent received the order while in Badagara, Kerala. The judgment emphasized that a part of the cause of action arises where the order becomes effective by service on the employee. The court relied on precedents such as Umasankar Chatterjee v. Union of India, W.W. Joshi v. State of Bombay, and Demolal v. Union of India, which held that the cause of action includes the place where the consequences of the order fall on the servant. Therefore, the Kerala High Court had jurisdiction as the order of removal became effective upon service in Kerala. 2. Proof of Misconduct: The second issue was whether the respondent committed misconduct under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, by publishing a letter in the press without prior sanction. The charge was based on Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), and 19(1). The learned single Judge found that the letter aimed to focus on the need for safety measures and was part of a national debate, not directed against any specific authority or intended to harm the railway administration's image. The judgment emphasized the constitutional right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), which, although subject to reasonable restrictions, should be interpreted liberally. The court concluded that the letter did not amount to misconduct as it did not induce indiscipline or inefficiency and did not attract the ban under Rule 19(1). 3. Authority of the Disciplinary Officer: The third issue was whether the authority who passed the removal order was competent. The respondent argued that the Divisional Operating Superintendent, who issued the removal order, was not the appointing authority and thus lacked jurisdiction. The appellants claimed that the respondent was appointed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, who was of the same rank as the Divisional Operating Superintendent. The court noted that if the respondent was appointed by the General Manager, as indicated in Ext. P1, the removal order would violate Article 311 of the Constitution. However, since the court found the removal order invalid on other grounds, it did not delve further into this issue. Conclusion: The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the single Judge's decision that the writ petition was maintainable within its jurisdiction, the charge of misconduct was not proven, and the removal order was invalid. The court also refused the appellant's oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of general importance.
|
