After the reply of the respondent had been received a departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiring Officer submitted a report finding all the four charges which.
The respondent filed a petition under Art.
He was given a week for showing cause why the proposed penalty should number be inflicted on him.
A show cause numberice was then served in September 1963 giving the findings of the Enquiring Officer Assistant Commercial Superintendent and it was stated that it had been tentatively decided by the Chief Commercial Superintendent that the respondent should be dismissed from service.
It was held by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent Olavakkot from 22 8 63 to 29 8 1963.
An enquiry, therefore was arranged.
The only point which prevailed with him Was that the Chief.
This numberice was served after the Chief Commercial Superintendent had recorded the following order Exh.
The division Bench on appeal by the present appellant affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated August 4, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.
In other words, the Chief CommerCial Superintendent .was bound.
Now Rule 1713 provides that if the disciplinary authority is number the Enquiring Authority it shall companysider the record of the enquiry and.
individual charge which was number done in the present case.
record its findings on each charge.
Commercial Superintendent had number recorded an order as required by Rule 1713.
In view of a bench decision of the Kerala High Court he did number rest his decision on the second point but decided in favour of the respondent on the first point holding that the Chief Commercial Superintendent had number given findings on each of the charges.
205 of 1964.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He examined the other companytention raised on behalf of the respondent before him that at the stage of the second show cause numberice the Chief Commercial Superintendent had finally made up his mind which he companyld number or ought number to have done until the reply or the explanation of the respondent had been received and companysidered by him.
8 did number companyply with the aforesaid rule because findings relating to each charge were number given after a proper discussion .and analysis of .the evidence produced at the departmental enquiry.
After the explanation of the respondent had been received his dismissal was ordered by the Chief Commercial Superintendent.
In July 1963 the respondent, who was working as an Assistant Station Master at Chalakudy railway station was served with a statement companytaining charges relating to certain matters after an inspection report had been submitted to the authorities companycerned.
In his opinion the rule companytemplated that the evidence which had been adduced at the enquiry in relation to each charges should be examined and companysidered by the punishing authority and he should give his own assessment and finding relating to each.
1064 of 1966.
had been preferred against the respondent proved.
The argument which prevailed with the High COurt was that the order embodied in Exh.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court and a number of points were raised before the learned Single Judge.
R. 8 The employee, in his reply dated 3 8 1963 to this charge sheet, has number accepted the charges companytained in the same.
The facts lie within a narrow companypass.
Sen and S.P. Nayar, for appellant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Kerala High Court in which the only point which arises for decision is whether Rule 1713 of the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules hereinafter called the Rules, for railway servants was companyrectly applied and the dismissal of the respondent, who at the material time, was an Assistant Station Master was rightly set aside for number companypliance with that Rule.
S. Nambiar and Lily Thomas, for the respondent.
I have seen the enquiry proceedings.
