RAILWAY BOARD, REPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND ANR. versus NIRANJAN SINGH

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 04-02-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ltAILWA\' BOARl>, REPRESENTING TliE UNION or A 
INDIA, NEW DELHI AND ANR •. 
v. 
NIRANJAN SINGH 
February 4, 1969 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Art. 226-Whether High Court, in exercise of 
certiorari jurisdiction can interfere with finding of disciplinary authority-
Art. !9(l)(a), (b) (c) and (3)-lf violated by General Manager of Rail- .. 
way prohibiting meetings of employees on ,Railway premises. 
Removal-Order of-Based on a numb.er of grounds -of which one 
not sustainable-If order liable to ,be struck down. 
The respondent Was a permanent employee of the Northern Railway 
and was served with a charge sheet in November, 1956, which levelled 
two charges against him. He was accused of having been instrumental in 
compelling the shut.<fown of an air comptessor and, in contravention of a 
direction given by the General Manager; Northern Railway, on June 19, 
1956, of having addressed a number <If meetings within the Railway pre-
mises. 
An enquiry committee after investigating the charges came to the 
conclusion that the first charge was 
not proved beyond all 
reasonable 
doubt but that the respondent was guilty of the second charge. The Gene-
ral Manager, who was the disciplinary authority, 
after examining the 
report of the cor:bmittee, accepted its findings on the second charge but 
differing from its conclusion on the first charge 
tentatively came to the 
conclusion that the respondent was guilty of that charge as well. After 
the issue of a show-cause notice to the respondent and the. rejection of 
his explanation, the General Manager directed, by an order of August 20, 
1957, that the respondent be removed from service. 
The respondent challenged the order of his removal by a writ petition. 
The petition was allowed and an appeal to a Division Bench was dismissed. 
The questions for decision in the appeal to this Court ivere' (i) whether the 
High Court was within its jurisdiction in the exercise of its powers under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution to set aside the conclusion reached by the 
General Manager on the first charge; (ii) whether the appellate court was 
right in its view · that i'f an order of removal is 
based on number of 
grounds and one or more of those grounds are fotmd to be unsustainable, 
the order is liable to be struck down; and (iii} whether the direction issued 
by the General Manager on June 19, 1956 was violative of Art. 19(1)(a) 
to (c) and (3). 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the rights gu~ranteed 
under Art. 19(1)(a), (b) & (c) are inviolable and they cannot be inter-
ferred with except in. accordance with sub-articles 2, 3 & 4 of Art. 19; that 
the Railway workers had a right to assembly in any place they chose and 
cpuld express their views so long they did not disturb the work going on 
in the premises. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : Allowing the appeal and dismissing the 
writ petition : (i) 
H 
The High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings of the . 
General Manager on the first charge. It was open to the General Manager 
to accept the evidence which the Enquiry Committee had rejected on the 
first charge and he was not bound by the conclusions reached by the com· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
G 
H 
RLY. BOARD V, NJRANJAN SINGH (Hegde, J.) 
54& 
mittec. On tho facts in the present case it could not be said that the ftnd. 
ing of the disciplinary authority was not supported by any evidence nor 
could it be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a find. 
ing. 
Henee the conclusion reached by the disciplinary 
authority . must 
prevail and the High Court in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction could 
not have interferred with its conclusion. (552 A-CJ 
Union of India v. H. C, Goel, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 718; Syed Yakoob v. 
K. S. Radhakrf.>:hnan & Ors., (1964] 5 S.C.R. 64; relied pn. 
(ii) There was no force in the contention that the punishment impos-
ed could not be sustained if it was held that one of the two charges on 
the basis of which it was imposed, was unsustainable. Ilf the order in an 
enquiry under Art. 311 can be supported on any finding as substantial 
misdemeanour for which the punishment imposed can lawfully be imposed, 
it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have 
weighed )Vith the authority in imposing the punishment in question [552 0] 
State of Orissa v. Bidyabhan Mohapatra, [1962] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 648; 
followed. 
(iii) The General Manager's direction p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.