PETITIONER:
RANJEET MAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYBARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI & A
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1976
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1701 1977 SCR (2) 409
1977 SCC (1) 484
ACT
Constitution of India--Article 226--In a writ by a
Railway employee challenging removal from service--Wheth-
er Union of India a necessary party.
HEADNOTE
The appellant, an employee of the Northern Railway was
removed from service. His appeal against the order of
removal was rejected by the General Manager. The appellant
feeling aggrieved filed a writ petition under 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 other 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. There-
fore, the Union of India is a necessary party. [410G-H,
411A-B]
Hari Vishnu Kamnath v. Ahmad Syed Isak & Ors., A.I.R.
1954 Nagpur 166 and Observer Publications P. Ltd. v. Railway
Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, New Delhi
A.I.R. 1966 Punjab 417, distinguished.
JUDGMENT
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 Rajasthan 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.
Mrs. Shyamla Papu, R.N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra, for
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 was 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.
410
The appellant applied under Article 226 in the High
Court of Rajasthan. The appellant was an employee of the
Northern Railway. 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 application 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 appropriate party.
Reliance was placed in support of the contention on the
decision Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Ahmad Syed Isak & Ors.(1).
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 was
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 Observer Publications Pvt. Ltd. v.
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India,
New Delhi(2). The petitioner in that case made an applica-
tion 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 the report the question of compe-
tency of the petition was discussed. The High Court said
that it was accepted by both parties that the Railway Board
was acting under a "notification issued in this behalf’ and
the Railway Board .was thus invested with all the powers of
the Central Government. The High Court held that it was not
necessary in that situation for the petitioner in that case
to implead the Union Government and it could not be contend-
ed that the petition should fail on that ground. There is
no discussion on the question now canvassed here. This
decision is also of no aid to the appellant for the reasons
indicated now.
It cannot be disputed that the appellant was a servant
of the Union. It is equally indisputable that any order of
removal is removal from service of the Union. The appellant
challenged that order. Any order which can be passed by any
Court would have to be enforced against the Union. The
General Manager or any other authority acting in the Railway
administration is as much a servant of the Union as the
appellant was in the present case.
(1) A.I.R. 1954 Nag. 166. (2) A.I.R. 1966 Punjab
417.
411
The Union of India represents the Railway administra-
tion. The Union carries administration through different
servants. These servants all represent the Union in regard
to activities whether in the matter of appointment or in the
matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which
will be passed on an application under Article 226 which
will have the effect of setting aside the removal will
fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any
servant of the Union. Therefore, from all points of view,
the Union of India was rightly held by the High Court to be
a necessary party. The petition was rightly rejected by
the High Court.
The appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties will pay and
bear their own costs.
P.H.P. Appeal dis-
missed.
412