IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22047 of 2004 Between: S.K. Yaseem Ahmed, S/o. Sk. Mastan, ASM.I, Nanded Division, SC Railway, Nanded, Maharashtra. . PETITIONER AND 1. The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, SC Railway Nanded Division, Nanded. 4. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, SC Railway, Nanded Division, Nanded. 5. The South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6. The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned judgment in OA.619/2004 dated 22-7-2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential reliefs and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY WRIT PETITION NO : 22080 of 2004 Between: S. Ramulu, S/o. Laxamaiah, T.H.S.I/C&W/SSE, SC Railway, Khazipet. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 . The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4. The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Sanchar Bhavan, SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 5. The South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society, rep by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6 The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned judgment in OA.1376/03 dated 13-7-2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential relief’s and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY WRIT PETITION NO : 22081 of 2004 Between: M. Narsing Rao, S/o. Laxmaiah, S.II Technician, Corrosion Shop, Carriage Workshop, SC Railway, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3 The Chief Workshop Manager, SC Railway, Carriage Workshop, Lalaguda, Secunderabad. 4 The Workshop Manager, SC Railway, Carriage Workshop, Lalaguda, Secunderabad. 5 The South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6 The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Judgment in O.A.No. 1513/03 dated 13-07-2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential relief’s and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY WRIT PETITION NO : 22082 of 2004 Between: S.V. Ramajogi Sarma, S/o. Suryanarayana, J.E./II(D)/Sr.DEN/Coord, SC Railway, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Railway Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4 The Sr.Divisional Engineer (Coordination) BG, Sanchalan Bhavan, SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 5 The South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6 The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned judgment in OA.No. 1377/03 dated 13-07-2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential relief’s and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY WRIT PETITION NO : 22083 of 2004 Between: A. Balaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Tech.Gr.I, Dy. CSTE/S&T/workshop/Office, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3 The Dy. Chief Signal & Telecommunications Engineer/S&T, S&T Workshop, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 4 The Production Engineer, S & T Workshop, SC Railway, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 5 The South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6 The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned judgment in OA.No.1511/03 Dt. 13.07.2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential relief’s and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY WRIT PETITION NO : 22084 of 2004 Between: N. Babu Rao, S/o. Kattaiah, Gangman (P.Way), SSE, Alair, SC Railway, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Railway Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (North), SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 5 The South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6 The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned judgment in OA.1374/03 Dt. 13.07.2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential relief’s and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY WRIT PETITION NO : 22085 of 2004 Between: N. Prasad, S/o. Yesuratnam, Supervisor (P.Way)/SSE/PW, SC Railway, Bellampally, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Railway Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4 The Sr. Divisional Engineer (North), SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 5 The South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6 The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned judgment in OA 1375/03 dated 13-7-2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential relief’s and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY WRIT PETITION NO : 22110 of 2004 Between: R.Visweswara Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, CMS GR.II, Diesel Loco Shed, S.C. Railway, Gooty, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Railway Manager, SC Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4 The Sr.Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel), SC Railway, Guntakal Division, Goooty, Anantapur. 5 The South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 6 The Central Registrar, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Judgment in OA.1514/03 dated 13-07-2004 and quash the same and further allow the OA as prayed for with all consequential relief’s and benefits and be pleased to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.R.S.MURTHY, SC FOR RAILWAYS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. K.RAMANUJA CHARY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: (PER B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 1. The batch of writ petitions are filed assailing the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad passed in O.A.Nos.1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1511, 1512, 1513 and 1514 of 2003 and O.A.No.619 of 2004. The writ petitioners have challenged the charged memos dated 22.8.2003 issued to them individually by the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioners questioned the respective charge memos before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by filing individual Original Applications. The learned Tribunal dismissed O.A.Nos.1374 of 2003 and batch by a common order dated 13.7.2004. The learned Tribunal by a separate order dated 22.7.2004 also dismissed O.A.No.619 of 2004 on the ground that the same was connected case to O.A.No.1374 of 2003 and batch. 2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, leading to filing of these writ petitions are : The petitioners in all these writ petitions are railway employees. There is a society called South Central Railway Employees Credit Society Limited, Secunderabad, originally established in 1923 and registered under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act No.7 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Society). Subsequently, the said Society came to be brought under the provisions of Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, presently known as Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as MSCSA) since the operations of the Society are spread over more than one State like Karnataka, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The writ petitioners were elected as Directors of the Society in the year 1999. Their term of office expired on 30.6.2002. The disciplinary authority had issued individual charge memos on 10.5.2004 to the writ petitioners alleging certain irregularities in appointing 27 candidates (Group-C 12 and Group-D 15) into the service of the Society in exercise of powers as Directors. The writ petitioners submitted representations raising jurisdictional aspect to issue charge memos for their actions as Directors of the Society, the functions of which are governed by the provisions of MSCSA. The disciplinary authority rejected their objections and appointed an enquiry officer. Assailing the order of the disciplinary authority, the writ petitioners filed O.As before the Tribunal to call for the records relating to the charge memos and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently to restrain the disciplinary authority from taking any action in pursuance of the charge memos. 4. The respondents have filed their reply statements in O.A.No.1376 of 2003 and O.A.No.1512 of 2003. The sum and substance of the reply statements filed by the disciplinary authority is that the writ petitioners being railway employees come within the purview of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which have the approval of the President of India, and under the said Rules the disciplinary authority has nominated Sri.R.Prabhakar, AEO, as Enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and to submit his report. The Railway Board’s letter dated 19.6.1973 authorises the disciplinary action against staff for misappropriation and other irregularities amounting to serious misconduct in the discharge of duty connected with the affairs of the institutions like the Railway Cooperative Societies, Clubs, and other similar bodies which are established and run by the railway servants. The applicants had enjoyed all the benefits that are applicable to railway servants and also the attendant benefits attached to the Directors and thus they cannot be permitted to contend that they are not liable to the disciplinary proceedings by the railway administration. The writ petitioners never ceased to be railway servants while discharging the functions as Board of Directors of the Society. Merely because the affairs of the Society are governed by the Societies Act, the writ petitioners cannot claim severance of the relationship with the Railway administration while discharging the functions of the Board of Directors relating to the affairs of the Society. U/s 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 the Registrar of Cooperative Societies can enquire into the affairs of the Society and have powers of inspection, summons and examine documents and person etc. U/ 59 of the said Act, the Registrar can place under suspension any paid Officer or servant of the Society if it is brought to the notice that they were responsible for the misappropriation, breach of trust or other offences in relation to the Society. The powers vested by the Registrar under the act is only against the said Officers and the employees of the Society. The writ petitioners being neither paid servants nor employees of the Society, disciplinary action against them has to be taken by the appropriate authority under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 as clarified by the Railway Board in its circulars dated 19.6.1973. In the bye-laws of the Society there is no provision to proceed against the Director who is a Railway employee. The Railway Board issued instructions by proceedings dated 19-6-1973 authorising the railway administration to take disciplinary action against the staff in discharge of their duty connected with the Railway Cooperative Societies. 5. The learned Tribunal, on considering the material on record and on hearing the learned counsel for parties, held that the acts and omissions attributed to the writ petitioners in the articles of charge do constitute irregularities amounting to serious misconduct in discharge of their duties in connection with the affairs of the Society as Managing Director/Directors and thus all the Oas are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. Hence, these writ petitions by the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that R5-Society is an independent and autonomous body governed by the provisions of MSCSA and the action taken by the Directors under the bye-laws of the Society is not subject to any supervision or control by the Railways. The Railway Board instructions through its letters dated 26.7.1955 and 19.6.1973 are unenforceable so far as they infringe the provisions of MSCSA. MSCSA is a self contained Act with statutory functions to oversee the affairs of the Society registered under the said Act and to take corrective measures including disqualifying the Directors, superceding the Board of Directors and also to annul any action taken by the Board of Management in contravention of the Act and Rules made there under. The Society has no financial aid from the Railways nor it has any share capital. Railways have no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action in respect of any act or omission committed by the railway servant not in his capacity as a railway servant or outside the railway premises. Even otherwise casual labour appointments were made after the notification and as per the procedure enunciated in the bye-laws and appointment orders were issued by the Secretary of the Society after the approval of the Board of Management. In nutshell, his submission is that the disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to initiate action for the acts and omissions committed by the writ petitioners while discharging the functions as Managing Director/Director of the Society during the period from 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2002. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. DEEP CHAND v. STATE OF U.P. 2. STATE OF ORISSA v. M.A.TULLOCH & CO. 3. STATE OF ASSAM v. HORIZON UNION 4. STATE OF J & K v. M.S.FAROOQI 5. UNION OF INDIA v. J.AHMED 6. M/s.GLAXO LABORATORIES (I) LTD. V. PRESIDING OFFICER, MEERUT 7. A.L.KALRA v. P & E CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. 8. VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 9. UNION OF INDIA (RAILWAY BOARD) v. J.V.SUBHAIAH 10. MANDLAPPA v. M.R.O. 11. B.VANI KUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 7. In the first cited decision, the Supreme Court enunciated the principles for ascertaining repugnancy between two statutes. Repugnancy between two statutes may be ascertained on the basis of the following principles: i. Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; ii. Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and iii. Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field. 8. In the second cited decision, the Supreme Court observed that repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other then to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation. 9. In the third cited decision, the appointment of Shri B.C.Dutta as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal came up for consideration. Section 7-A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prescribes the qualifications for appointment of Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal. Sec.7-A inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Act No.36 of 1956 with effect from March 10, 1957. Assam Act No.8 of 1962 which received the assent of the President on April 25, 1962 inserted in S.7-A(3) after clause (a). In 1964, the Parliament passed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act (No.36 of 1964). As per the amending Act inserted in clause 7-A(3) after clause (a), a person who has for a period of not less than three years, has been a District Judge or Additional District Judge is eligible to be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. The Supreme Court while examining the proviso to clauses (aa) inserted by Assam Act 36 of 1964 and clause (aa) inserted by the Central Act observed as follows: “ 6. The appointment of Shri Dutta as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal was made without consultation with the High Court. Respondent No.1 submitted that, consequently, there was no compliance with the proviso to S.7-A (3) (aa) inserted by Assam Act NO.8 of 1962. This contention has no force. In respect of the subject matter of the appointment of a person who has for a period of not less than three years been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge, Cl.(aa) inserted by Central Act No.36 of 1964 impliedly repealed Cl. (aa) inserted by the Assam Act. Clause (aa) inserted by the Central Act is intended to be an exhaustive code in respect of this subject-matter. The Central Act now occupies this field. The provisions of Cl.(aa) inserted by the Assam Act on this subject are repugnant to Cl.(aa) inserted by the Central Act and by Art.254 of the Constitution, to the extent of this repugnancy, is void. Clause (aa) of S.7-A (3) inserted by the Central Act does not require any consultation with the High Court.” 10. In the fourth cited decision, the facts are that M.S.Farooqi is a Member of Indian Police Service. He is borne on the Jammu and Kashmir cadre. On March 12, 1964, an anonymous complaint was received by the Commission, set up under the Commission Act. On March 20, 1964, the Commission asked for a report from the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption Organization) raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission, however, held that the Commission Act was applicable in its entirety to Government servants belonging to Jammu and Kashmir cadre of the All India Services. The objection raised by the Investigating Agency was thus over ruled. The Investigating Agency was directed to continue investigation of the case and submit a report. There upon M.S. Farooqi filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission. The High Court allowed the petition, but later granted certificate of fitness and the appeal came to be filed on behalf of the State of Jammu Kashmir. A question came up for consideration as to the applicability of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 or Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1962 for All India Services. The Supreme Court held as follows: “ In so far as the impugned Act deals with the infliction of disciplinary punishments it is repugnant to the (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Parliament has occupied the field and given clear indication as to the only manner in which any disciplinary action should be taken against the members of All India Service. Though the provisions of the State Act dealing with investigation for possible criminal prosecution are not repugnant to the Discipline and Appeal Rules, they are inextricably intertwined with the provisions dealing with infliction of disciplinary punishment and as such the whole Act must be read as to leave the members of the All India Services outside its purview.” 11. In the fifth cited decision, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider as to what constitutes misconduct. Whether lack of efficiency, failure to attain higher standards of administration every day etc. constitute misconduct. The Supreme Court held that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would not themselves constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performances of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. 12. In the sixth cited decision, the Supreme Court held that misconduct must have casual connection with place of work and with duty hours and the employer has no extra territorial jurisdiction under the standing orders to punish for misconduct. Where the Standing Orders of an establishment provide that certain acts would constitute misconduct if “committed within premises of the establishment or