Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Railway Employee in Disciplinary Proceedings Under Article 311 of Constitution of India. Direction by General Manager Prohibiting Meetings on Railway Premises Held Not Violative of Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Constitution of India as There is No Fundamental Right to Hold Meetings in Government Premises.

The litigation was a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a railway employee challenging his removal from service by the disciplinary authority, the General Manager of Northern Railway.

The respondent (employee) sought quashing of the removal order and reinstatement.

He alleged that the disciplinary authority's findings were perverse, one charge was not proved, and the General Manager's direction prohibiting meetings on railway premises violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1).

The single judge of the Punjab High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the removal order on the ground that the first charge was not established and the General Manager's direction was void under Article 19(1). On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court upheld the single judge's finding on the first charge but disagreed on the constitutionality of the direction; however, it affirmed the decision on the ground that if a punishment is based on multiple charges and one is unsustainable, the order cannot stand.

Whether the High Court was within its jurisdiction in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the conclusion reached by the General Manager on the first charge Whether the direction issued by the General Manager on June 19, 1956 was violative of Article 19(1) (a) to (c) and (3) of the Constitution Whether the appellate court was right in its view that if an order of removal is based on number of grounds and one or more of those grounds are found to be unsustainable, the order is liable to be struck down

Appellant argued that the finding of the General Manager on the first charge was a finding of fact, supported by evidence and not perverse; the High Court could not reappreciate evidence under certiorari jurisdiction. The direction prohibiting meetings was valid as a property right, not violating Article 19(1). Even if one charge is unsustainable, the punishment can be sustained on the remaining charge. Respondent contended that the General Manager's finding was based on hearsay and unreasonable inferences; the direction infringed his rights under Article 19(1)(a) to (c); the removal order cannot stand because it was based on multiple grounds, and it is not clear whether the authority would have imposed the same punishment on the remaining charge alone.

(1) Under Article 226, the High Court cannot interfere with a finding of fact by a disciplinary authority in a departmental enquiry unless it is not supported by any evidence or is perverse. (2) A direction by the owner of government premises prohibiting meetings on its property does not violate Article 19(1)(a) to (c) because there is no fundamental right to hold meetings on another's property; the right to property is a limitation inherent in those freedoms. (3) If an order of punishment is based on multiple charges, and one charge is found unsustainable, the order can still be sustained if it can be supported on the remaining charge for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed; the court will not speculate on the authority's subjective decision.

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 committee. There is no fundamental right for any one to hold meetings in Government premises. Freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peacefully and the freedom to form Associations or Unions does not mean that these rights can be exercised by the citizens in whatever place they please. If the order in an enquiry under Art. 311 can be supported on any finding as substantial misdemeanor for which the punishment imposed can lawfully be imposed it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment in question.

The respondent, a permanent employee of Northern Railway, was served a charge sheet on November 7, 1956 with two charges. An enquiry committee was appointed which found the first charge not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the second charge proved. The General Manager, as disciplinary authority, disagreed on the first charge and tentatively found him guilty, issued a show-cause notice, and after considering his explanation, ordered his removal from service on August 20, 1957. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the Punjab High Court. A single judge allowed the petition, setting aside the removal on grounds that the first charge was not established and the General Manager's direction prohibiting meetings violated Article 19(1). On appeal by the Railway Board, a Division Bench upheld the single judge's finding on the first charge but held that the impugned direction was not unconstitutional; however, it affirmed the decision on the principle that if a removal order is based on multiple charges and one is found unsustainable, the order cannot be upheld. The Railway Board then appealed to the Supreme Court after obtaining a certificate under Articles 132 and 133(1)(c). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decisions, and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the removal order.

• Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), Article 19(1)(c), Article 19(3), Article 311, Article 132, Article 133(1)(c)
• Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I: Rule 1708, Rule 1702