A departmental enquiry was held into this accident as required by the statute, and as a result of this enquiry it was found that the accident was due to number locking with the chain the level crossing gate between Up, Outer and Home at Rawtara in front of an in coming train 313 Dn.
AIR 1960 SC 992 The Judgment was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J Per Gajendragadkar, J The appellant was employed as assistant station master at Rawtara on the Katihar Jogbani branch of the North Eastern Railway.
On 9 June 1956 there was a companylision between the train engine of 313 Down and a bullock cart as a result of which the cartman died though the buffaloes drawing the cart were number hurt.
On receipt of this numberice the appellant companyplained that he had been given numberopportunity to meet the charge, that he was innocent and had companymitted numbermisconduct, and he prayed that local witnesses should be examined.
The appellant appealed against the said order but his appeal failed.
The validity of this order was challenged by him by a writ petition filed in the High Court of judicature at Patna on 3 July 1957.
On 9 January 1957, he was served with an order reducing him to the rank of signaller.
The High Court, however, summarily rejected the said petition on 4 July 1957.
It appears that numbersubsequent enquiry was held number was any opportunity given to the appellant to show cause in respect of the charge that he was responsible for the accident.
132 1 and 133 1 c of the Constitution was likewise rejected by the High Court.
In this enquiry the appellant gave evidence and so did other witnesses.
He also referred to the fact that soon after the accident took place the local police officer had made an investigation and his report showed that the appellant was number responsible for the accident.
The companymittee which held the enquiry came to the companyclusion that the accident was due to the violation of G.S.R. 229/5 by both the appellant and the points man Shri Raghunath Koori.
Ultimately on 9 January 1957, the impugned order was passed against him.
Thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this Court.
The appellants application for a certificate under Arts.
It is an these facts that the validity of the said order is challenged by the appellant.
It is obvious that the enquiry into the accident which was held by the statutory companymittee was number directed against the appellant as such.
On 26 July 1956, the appellant was served with a numberice calling upon him to show cause by written explanation within seven days why the penalty specified in the said list should number be imposed on him.
