9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y addressing meetings with in the railway premises on June 23, 1956, June 25, 1956, July 24, 1956, July 25, 1956 and July 27, 1956. On these charges he was called upon to show-cause why he should not be removed from service under Rule 1708 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. 1 or punished with any lesser penalties specified in Rule 1702. After receiving his explanation an enquiry committee consisting of three officers was appointed to enquire into the charges. The said committee came to the conclusion that the first charge was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt but he was guilty of the second,charge. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the General Manager remitted the case back to the enquiry committee for submitting a fresh report after examining the witnesses mentioned in his order. Even after examining those witnesses the enquiry committee adhered to its earlier conclusions. After examining the reports of the enquiry committee, the General Manager as per his order of May 25, 1957 accepted its finding on the second charge but differing from its conclusion on the first charge- tentatively came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of that charge as well. As a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upported the conclusions of the appellate court, he also strongly commended for our acceptance the finding- of the learned single judge that General Manager's direction contained in his letter- of June 19, 1956 was violative of Art. 19(1) (a) to (c). The questions that arise for decision in this appeal are (1) whether the High Court was within its jurisdiction in the exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution to set aside the conclusion reached by the General Manager on the first charge, (2) whether the direction issued by the General Manager on June 19, 1956 is violative of Art. 19(1) a to (c) and (3) whether the appellate court was right in its view that if an order of removal is based on number of grounds and one or more of those grounds are found to be unsustainable, the order is liable to be struck down. Now coming to the first charge, we may first set out the un- disputed facts. On May 31, 1956, the Union of which the respondent was the Vice-President declared a token strike. The strike in question was declared by the respondent and he took a leading part in it. During the time of the strike the compressor was not worked. The enquiry committee came to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the General Manager on the first charge. Before we take up for consideration point No. 2 formulated above, it would be convenient to deal with point No. 3. It was not disputed before us that the first charge levelled against the respondent is a serious charge and it would have been appropriate for the General Manager to remove the respondent from service on the basis of his finding on that charge. But we were told that we cannot assume that the General Manager would have inflicted that punishment solely on the basis of that charge and consequently we cannot sustain the punishment imposed if we hold that one of the two charges on the basis of which it was imposed is unsustainable. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhan Mohapatra(3) wherein it was held that if the order in an enquiry under Art. 311 can be supported on any finding as substantial mis demeanour for which the punishment imposed can lawfully be unposed it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have' weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment in question. Now we come to the second charge. In order to examine th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailway is the owner of the premises in question. The fact that the Indian Railways are State Undertakings does not affect their right to enjoy their properties in the same manner as any private individual may do subject only to such restrictions as the law or the usage may place on the. Hence unless it is shown that either under law or because of some usage the railway servants have a right to hold their meetings in railway premises, we see no basis for objecting to the direction given by the General Manager. There is no fundamental right for anyone to hold meetings in government premises. If it is otherwise there is bound to be chaos in our offices. The fact that those who work in a public office can go there does not confer on them the right of holding a meeting at that office even if it be the, most convenient place to do so. It is true that the freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution are very valuable freedoms and this Court would resist abridging the ambit of those freedoms except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom to form- associations or unions does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asked to leave the sidewalk and Chicka-saw she declined. The deputy sheriff arrested her and she was charged in the state court for violating the law. The town in question is described in the judgment thus: The town, a suburb of Mobile, Alabama,. known as Chicka-saw, is owned by the Gulf Ship building Corporation. Except for that it has all the characteristics of any other American town. The property consists of residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a business block on which business places are situated.. A deputy of the Mobile County Sheriff, paid by the company, serves as the town's policeman. Merchants and service establishments have rented the stores and business places on the business block and the United States uses one of the places as a post office from which six carriers deliver mail to the people of Chickasaw and the adjacent area. The town and the surrounding neighborhood, which cannot be distinguished from the gulf property by anyone not familiar with the property lines, are thickly settled, and according to all indications the residents use the business block as their regular shopping center. To do so, they now, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
