http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RANJEET MAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYBARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI & A

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       (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