RAM CHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 02-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
980 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
MAY 2, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.) 
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, Rule 
22(2) - "Consider" - Interpretation of - Duty of Railway Board f' 
to record its findings and pass reasoned order. 
Constitution of India, Art. 311(2) -
Tulsiram Patel's 
case -
Effect of - Appellate Authority -
Duty of -
To give 
hearing to delinquent servant - Pass a reasoned order in the 
departmental appeal. 
The appellant who was employed as Shunter, Grade 'B' was 
removed from service. The charge against him was that he was 
D 
guilty of misconduct in that he had assaulted his illllll!diate 
superior. As he did not appear at the enquiry, the Enquiry 
Officer proceeded ex-parte and examined witnesses and found 
the charge proved. 'nle General Manager agreed with the report 
of the Enquiry Officer and came to the provisional conclusion 
that the penalty of removal from service should be inflicted, • 
E 
issued 
a 
show 
cause 
notice to the appellant, 
who 
in 
compliance, showed cause but his explanation was not accepted •• 
'nle General Manager by an order dated August 24, 1971 imposed 
-
the penalty of removal from service. 
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Railway -t r-
F 
Board under rule 18(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline 
and Appeal) Rules, 1968 but the Railway Board dismissed the + 
appeal. 'nle High Court also dismissed the writ petition of the 
appellant holding that since the Railway Board agreed w,1.th the 
findings of the General Manager, there was no duty cast on the 
Railway 
Board to record 
reasons for its decision. 'nle 
G 
appellant's Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench was 
also dismissed in limine. 
H 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the 
,.._ 
Railway Board, 
... 
RAM CHANDER v. U.O. I. 
981 
-1 
HELD: 1. The judgment and order of the Single Judge and 
that of the Division Bench are both set aside, so also the 
impugned order of the Railway B9ard dated March 11, 1972. The 
Railway Board is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal 
after affording a personal hearing to the appellant on merits 
A 
by a reasoned order in conformity with the requirements of 
B 
Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) 
Rules, 1968. [999 H; 1000 A-B] 
i 
2. Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules in express 
terms requires the Railway Board to record its finding on the 
three aspects stated therein. It provides that in the case of 
an appeal against 
an order imposing any of the penalties 
)' specified in rule 6 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the 
said rule, the Appellate Authority shall 'consider' as to the 
r matters indicated therein. [989 E-F] 
2.1 The word 'consider' has different shades of meaning 
c 
and 1D1st in rule 22(2), in the context in which it appears, 
D 
mean an objective consideration by the Railway Board after due 
application of mind which implies the giving of reasons for 
its decision. [989 F-G] 
In the instant case, the impugned order is just a 
mechanical 
reproduction of 
the phraseology of rule 22(2) 
without any attempt on the part of the Railway Board either to 
marshall the evidence on record with a view to decide whether 
the finding arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority could be 
sustained or not. There is also no indication that the Railway 
+ ·Board applied its mind as to whether the act of misconduct 
with which the appellant was charged together with the 
1 .. attendant circumstances and the past record of the appellant 
-r were such that he should have been visited with the extreme 
penalty of removal from service for a single lapse in a span 
F 
of 24 years of service. There being non-compliance with the 
requirements of Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules, the 
impugned order passed by the Railway Board is liable to be set 
G 
aside. [987 A-D] 
3. Dismissal or removal from service is a matter of 
grave concern to a civil servant, who after such a long period 
of service may not deserve such a harsh punishment. [987 C-D] 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 2 S,C.R. 
State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, A.I.R. [1966 S.C. 
1827, Som Datt Datta v. Union of India & Ora., [1969) 2 S.C.R. ~ 
176, Tara Qiand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & 
Ora., [1977) 2 s.c.R. 198 and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. 
v. Union of India, [1966) 1 s.c.R. 466, referred to. 
4.1 After the constitutional change brought about by the 
Forty-Second Amendment the 

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