Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ application has been filed by Lekhram Saini under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it arises out of the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time, that is, on 11 December 1960. was posted at Abu Road and he was incharge of the special squad of the travelling ticket examiners (T.T. Es.) which was working directly under the Chief Commercial Superintendent. It is alleged that a marriage party of the son of one Murarilal, who was a sweet-vendor at Abu Road station, took 32 Down Janta Express from Abu Road to Delhi, and the petitioner Lekhram also took that train for checking purposes along with two other scheduled travelling ticket examiners. The petitioner checked two members of the marriage party at Sirohi Road who did not hold any tickets but it was found that they had boarded the train after informing the guard and, therefore, the petitioner prepared two excess fare tickets for these persons from Abu Road to Delhi and collected Rs. 44.50 from them. At Ajmer station the petitioner deposited that collection and he had a mind to drop down there, but, according to his version, he overheard somebody saying that they were joining the marriage party from there but they could not purchase the tickets. This prompted the petitioner to board the train once again for checking purposes and he succeeded to find out at the Kishangarh railway station ten persons going without tickets. He charged them and recovered Rs. 109.75 from them. Sri K.P. Bhattacharya, the scheduled travelling ticket examiner, was also detailed on that train for checking purposes but it is said that he did not make any recovery from that train up to Delhi. After Phulera the petitioner again detected one child travelling without ticket. He, therefore, charged Rs. 5 from the parents of that child who happened to be the members of the marriage party. Thereafter, the petitioner did not check the train any further and went to sleep in one of the compartments of that train. As a result of telephonic message received by the Deputy Minister, Railways, that the petitioner as a member of the special squad of the travelling ticket examiners was carrying a marriage party from Abu Road to Delhi, the train was checked by the staff of the Northern Railway at Delhi Junction and it was found that 25 persons belonging to the marriage party were not holding any tickets. They were consequently charged excess fare and three travelling ticket examiners of the Northern Railway collected Rs. 698 from the incharge of the marriage party. Thereafter, the Senior Commercial Officer (General) (for the sake of brevity to be referred hereinafter as the S.C.O.G.) issued a chargesheet dated 26 March 1962, with a statement of allegations to the petitioner. The petitioner in response to the said chargesheet wrote to the S.C.O.G. that before issuing the chargesheet the department got five enquiries done in this matter and, therefore, he should toe supplied the copies of the reports of the officers who conducted those enquiries in order to enable him to prepare his defence. This letter is Ex. 2 on the file. The S.C.O.G., thereupon, informed the petitioner that he cannot be supplied with the copies of the reports demanded by him as they have not been made the basis for framing the charge, nor have they been referred to in the chargesheet. The petitioner again wrote to the said officer that under Rule 1711 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules (D.A.R.) he should be supplied with the copies of the findings of the preliminary enquiries held by various authorities, or at least he should be allowed an inspection of those documents and permitted to take extracts thereof for his defence purposes, but it so appears that the department did not give any reply to the petitioner about this demand. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the S.C.O.G., which is Ex. 10 on the file. According to this report, the petitioner was found negligent in the performance of his duties in checking the 32 Down Janta Express on the night between 11 and 12 December 1960, but as there was no direct evidence to establish that the petitioner had deliberately undercharged the members of the marriage party of Murarilal, he was exonerated by the enquiry officer of the second charge of deliberately undercharging the marriage party. On receipt of this report, the S.C.O.G. issued second notice to the petitioner on 24 October 1964 to show cause why increments for two years with recruiting effect may not be stopped for the charge of negligence and thereafter it is said that the S.C.O.G. imposed this minor penalty on the petitioner. When the matter came to the notice of the General Manager, Western Railway, he did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and, therefore, on 19 February 1965, the petitioner received a memorandum from the office of the General Manager, purported to have been issued under Rule 1736 R.I., whereby the petitioner was informed that he was not adequately punished, as in the opinion of the General Manager the evidence on the record was sufficient to establish both the charges levelled against him. The petitioner was also informed by the said notice that the punishing authority committed an error in awarding him a minor penalty for the charges which, in the judgment of the General Manager, were of grave nature and entailed a major penalty, and, therefore. General Manager served the petitioner with the said notice requiring him to face a fresh enquiry. It was, however, made clear in that notice that the petitioner will get an opportunity to lead additional evidence, with particular reference to the documents that were not made available to him at the previous enquiry and he was also allowed to further cross-examine the witnesses already examined at the previous enquiry. The report of the second enquiry officer after holding a full-fledged enquiry was submitted to the General Manager on 1 September 1965. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer in this report was that the charge of neglect of duty was fully established against the petitioner but regarding the second charge of deliberately undercharging the marriage party it was observed that in the absence of any direct evidence it was difficult for him to hold the petitioner guilty of that charge. The General Manager, Western Railway, however, did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and after considering the evidence on the record, he came to a definite conclusion that both the charges were established against the petitioner and therefore he issued a second notice to the petitioner under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution to show cause why he should not be removed from the service for the charges proved against him. The petitioner submitted his representation in compliance with the said notice dated 17 November 1955 (Ex. 17). The General Manager, after considering the representation of the petitioner, issued an order on 15 January 1966 removing the petitioner from service on the charge of deliberately undercharging the marriage party and being negligent in his duties. It is this order that has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ application, after the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Railway Board.

(5) That the petitioner deposited the collections made by him at the Ajmer railway station and he was intending to leave that train at Ajmer but on hearing from persons who were to join that marriage party from Ajmer that they could not purchase tickets, the petitioner decided once again to catch that train for the purpose of checking and he found between Kishangarh and Phulera ten members of the marriage party travelling without tickets and charged Rs. 109.75 from them.

(6) That on further checking of that train beyond Phulera. the petitioner noticed one more child belonging to the marriage party travelling without ticket and therefore he charged Rs. 5 from the parents of the child.

I met them at Phulera, and cannot say where they entrained. At Phulera I saw Lekhram dealing with a party. I asked him if he had detected some case and he replied that he was dealing with a marriage party and was scrutinizing the number of the party and would advise the excess fare ticket issued later on.

Except this statement there is nothing in his statement to show that the petitioner had shown any interest in shielding the marriage party. There is no doubt that the petitioner had come to know between Abu Road and Sirohi Road that a marriage party of Murarilal's son was travelling in that train and that two of its members had boarded the train at Abu Road without purchasing the tickets and they were charged by him at Sirohi Road on a certificate issued by the guard but this fact could not afford a clue to the petitioner to suspect that the entire marriage party was travelling without ticket because these two persons had informed the guard before taking the train that they could not purchase the tickets and it is why a certificate was issued by the guard. If the certificate of the guard had not been there, then it could give rise to a suspicion that the other members of the marriage party might also be going without ticket. This circumstance, therefore, that he charged two members at the Sirohi Road is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner knew that the marriage party was travelling without ticket. At Ajmer, it is said that the petitioner overheard some people saying that they could not purchase the tickets while they were trying to board the train from there and therefore though he was thinking to discontinue his journey at Ajmer he again took that train and charged ten persons between Kishangarh and Phulera. There is no evidence on the record to show that by charging these ten persons he could have sensed that the other members of the marriage party might also be travelling in that manner, especially when there is nothing to show that those ten persons were travelling from Abu Road and had not entrained from Ajmer as is alleged by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner charged one child between Phulera and Reengus. If the petitioner had been shielding the marriage party, as has been inferred against him, then he would not have charged the members of the party, in piecemeal in the manner in which he did it. Thereafter, the petitioner, according to his statement, slept and went up to Delhi but at the time when the Northern Railway staff raided the train after its arrival at the Delhi Junction, he says, he was fast asleep and he did not know that the other members of the marriage party were checked by the Northern Railway staff.

42. As regards the charge relating to his negligence, it is evident that the petitioner had no intention to go in 32 Down Janta Express beyond Aimer but when he came to know that certain persons were joining the marriage party from Ajmer and had boarded the train without purchasing tickets he decided to check that train beyond Ajmer also and during that checking found out between Kishangarh and Phulera that ten persons of the marriage party were traveling without tickets. It is not the case of the petitioner that thereafter he took precautions to find out whether any other members of the marriage party were in the train or not. At Phulera he had a talk with Bhattacharya who was a scheduled travelling ticket examiner on that train and he told him that he was dealing with the marriage party but he did not instruct Bhattacharya to find out if any other member of the party were also travelling without ticket in other compartments not checked by him. This fact cannot be overlooked that certain railway servants were also members of that marriage party and one Roopchand who was in the special squad which was headed by the petitioner was also going by that train as a member of that party. The petitioner did not take any care which, under the circum-stances, was required from a member of the special squad to find out by checking the entire train whether other members of the party were also travelling in the same manner in which the ten persons whom the petitioner had charged were going. These circumstances inevitably lead to only one conclusion that the petitioner was not quite vigilant in the discharge of his duties as a member of the special squad and as such he could be held guilty of negligence. In these circumstances, the finding of the disciplinary authority about the charge of negligence does not call for any interference.