High CourtsSingle Bench(1984) 02 KL CK 0044

N. Sankaran and Others vs The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer.Southern Railway and Others

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 February 1984 · Citation: (1984) KLJ 95

HON’BLE JUDGES
T. Kochu Thommen, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
O.P. No''s. 5118 to 5122 and 5053 of 1981

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 345 words

Dr. T. Kochu Thommen, J.—In all these petitions the petitioners who were Drivers and Diesel Assistants were dismissed from the service of the respondent-Railway without holding an enquiry. The reason for not holding the enquiry is stated to be the special procedure laid down under Rule 14(H) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. This rule reads:

14.

Special procedure in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 9 to 13:--

(i)..............................

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or

(iii).....................

the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit;

Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.

(emphasis supplied)

Ext. P1 is the order of dismissal. Ext. P1 does not state the reasons why the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Admittedly no enquiry was held. In the circumstances Ext. P1 is contrary to, and violative of, Rule 14.

2.

The respondents counsel however tells me that the reasons are recorded in the file of the Railway but he also tells me that these reasons have not been communicated to the petitioners. In so far as Ext. P1 does not contain the reasons for not holding the enquiry and in so far as the reasons were admittedly not communicated to the petitioners, Ext. P1 is invalid, null and void and of no effect. It is so declared. The petitioners are thus deemed to have been uninterruptedly in the service of the respondent-Railway at all materials times, and are thus entitled to all consequential benefit including salary. It is however open to the respondents to conduct a proper enquiry, and to take whatever action that is necessary in that regard, according to law. The Original'' Petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs.