RANJEET MAL versus GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 10-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RANJEET MAL 
v. 
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY 
BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI & ANR. 
December 10, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., H. M. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
409 
Constitution of India-Article 226-In a writ by a 
Railway 
employee 
challenging removal from service-Whether Union of India a necessary party. 
A 
B 
The appellant, an employee of the Northern Railway was removed 
from 
service. His appeal against the order of removal was rejected by the General-
C 
Manager. The appellant feeling aggrieved filed a writ petition nnder Art. 226. 
In the writ petition, the General Manager was JOined as a respondent but the 
Union of India was not impleaded. 
On appeal, the Division Bench confirmed 
the decision of the single Judge. The counsel for the appellant contended that 
the General Manager is the authority to hear the matters regarding the removal 
and, therefore, he is the proper authority. 
Dismissing the appeal by Special Leave, 
HELD : The appellant was servant of the Union. The order of removal 
is removal from the service of the Union. 
Any order of a court would have 
to be enforced against the Union. The General Manager or any 0ther authority 
acting in the Railway Administration is as much a servant of the Union as the 
appellant was in the present case. The Union of India represents the Railway 
Administration. 
The Union carries administration through different servants, 
Any order setting aside the removal would fasten liability on the Union of India 
and not on any servant of the Union. Therefore, the Union of India is a neces-
sary party. 
[410G-H, 411A-B] 
Hari Vislznu Karnath v. Ahmad Syed Isak & Ors., A.LR. 1954 Nagpur 166 
~d ·Observer Publications P. Ltd. v. Railway Board, Ministry of 
Railways, 
Govt. of India, New Delhi A.LR. 1966 Punjab 417, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil 
Appeal No. 
432 of 
1976. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 4-10-1974 of the Raja&than High Court in D. B. Civil Special 
Appeal No. 134 of 1973). 
L. M. Singhvi, K. B. Rohtagi, S. K. Dhingra, Vijay, K. Jain 
and M. M. Kashyap, for the appellant. 
D 
E 
F 
Mrs. Shyamla Papu, R. N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra, for 
G 
respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J.-In this matter leave was granted on 30 March, 
1972. 
Leave was confined to the question whether Union of India 
is a necessary party. 
Leave wa·s granted because it was contended 
that there were decisions to support the appellant's contention that 
the Union of India is not a necessary party. 
We gave leave to settle 
. this question. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 S.C.R-
The appellant applied under Article 226 in the High Court of 
Rajasthan. 
The appellant was an employee of the Nqrthem Rail-
way. He was removed from service with effect from 
2 January 
1969. His appeal against the order of removal was rejected by the 
General Manager. 
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed the ap-
plication under Article 226. The trial court rejected the application 
on the ground that the Union of India was not impleaded. 
On appeal the Division Bench affirmed the decision of the trial 
court and held after referring to two decisions of this Court that the 
Union of India is a necessary party. 
Counsel for the appellant contended that the General Manager 
is the authority to hear these matters regarding the removal, and, 
therefore, that is the appropria,te party. . Reliance was placed 
in 
support of the contention on the decision Hari Vishnu Karnath v. 
Ahmad Syed Isak & Ors.('). That was a case relating to an Election 
Petition. 
The ·contention was 
advanced that the Union of India 
was a necessary party because the Election Commission is 
required 
to transmit copies of order of the Tribunal to the Speaker of the 
House and to publish the same in the Gazette. The Nagpur High 
Court rejected the contention that the Union wail a necessary party 
on that ground. This decision can by no stretch of imagination be of 
any aid to the appellant in the present case. 
Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Punjab 
High Court in Observ.er Publications Pvt. Ltd. v. Railway Board, 
Ministry of Railways, Government of India, 
New Delhi(2). The 
petitioner in that case made an application under Article 226 
to 
question the validity of the ban imposed by the Railway Board on 
the news-weekly "Indian Observer". 
At page 421 of tile report 
the question of competency of

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