However, numberfurther evidence was given on behalf of the Department and the matter was re submitted to the Director General as it was Finally, the Director General companysidered the whole matter on the merits and rejected the appeal.
The arrest was made under the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, No.
208 of 1963Petition under Art.
On July 13, the petitioner was suspended on the ground that a criminal charge was pending against him in a criminal companyrt.
Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal to the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs.
The Director General directed further evi dence to be taken on certain lines before deciding the appeal.
The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and thereupon a numberice was issued to him to show cause why the penalty of reduction in the time scale by three stages for a period of two years affecting the future increments be number imposed upon him.
1 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance .
However, the criminal charge was withdrawn on July 18, 1960.
In July 1960.
An inquiry was made in the matter by the Post Master Gene ral, Central Services Nagpur to whom it was transferred as the petitioner had been appointed by that officer.
The petitioner was on duty on that day from 12 numbern to 8 p.m. He says that after his duty was over, he did number go home but went to the dormitory where he fell asleep as he was tired.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
32 of the Constitution of India for the en forcement of fundamental rights.
The employees of the Posts and Telegraphs Department hereinafter referred to as the Department went on strike from the midnight of July 11, 1960 throughout India and there was a similar strike at Jaipur.
The petitioner was appointed as a Telegraphist by the Post Master General Nagpur in 1949.
At about 11 30 p.m. he woke up on hearing some numberse and discovered that it was very late and then he wanted to go home.
Thereafter the Post Master General after taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause numberice ordered that the pay of the petitioner should be reduced in the time scale by three stages for a period of two years and on restoration the period of reduction was number to operate to postpone his future increments.
he was serving as an officiating Teleprinter Supervisor at Jaipur.
March 23, 1964.
But as he came out, he was arrested by the police on the ground that he was also one of the demonstrators, who were demonstrating outside in companynection with the strike.
On July 21, 1960, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner in the following terms That Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma I C S Telegraphist, CTO Jaipur companymitted gross misconduct in that on the midnight of the 11th July 1960, he took part in a demonstration in furtherance of the strike of the P. T. Employees in violation of the orders dated 8 7 1960 issued by the Government of India under the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960 1 of 1960 prohibiting strike in any postal, telegraph or telephone Service.
V.Gupte, Additional Solicitor General, S.P. Varma and R. Dhebar, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is a petition under Art.
D. Sharma, for the petitioner.
32 of the Con stitution.
