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

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 409
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 432 of 1976
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, H. M. Beg, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ranjeet-mal-v-general-manager-northern-railway-baroda-house-new-delhi-anr-7051
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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 GeneralC
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 necessary 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.

## Text

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 GeneralC
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 necessary 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.RThe appellant applied under Article 226 in the High Court of
Rajasthan.
The appellant was an employee of the Nqrthem 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 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 · 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 contended ,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 i's 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 .
. _ _,
(I) A.l.R. 1954 Nag.166.
(2) A.I.R. 1966 Punjab 417.
'
'
(
r
RANJEET MAL V. G. M. NORTHERN RAILWAY (Ray, C.J.)
411
The Union of India represents the Railway administration. The
A
: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
B
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
-0wn costs.
IP.H.P.
Appeal dismissed.