1. Counsel moves under Article 226 for sending for the records of the petitioner's case and for quashing the order of dismissal passed against him.
2. The petitioner alleges that on the 4th July 1927 he was appointed a permanent Way Inspector by the Chief Engineer of the North Western Railway, that he was confirmed in May 1941 and has been a permanent Way Inspector for a period of 24 years, that on the 4th November 1950 he was suspended by an order sent to him by telegram of the same date by the Divisional Superintendent, Ferozepore, that an inquiry was held after a copy of the charge sheet was given to him by the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Divisional Superintendent; that the members of the Board of Enquiry were inefficient and incompetent to enquire into his conduct, that the enquiry was held partly in his presence and partly in his absence and that the conclusions arrived at by the Board of Enquiry were tainted and vitiated and could not be binding on the petitioner. The Committee of Enquiry gave a finding against the petitioner and he was ordered to be removed from service as from the 28th June 1951 and another letter was received by him dated the 21st January 1952 from the Divisional Superintendent, New Delhi, affirming the order 'of his removal.
3. The petitioner submits that his removal is contrary to law as he could not be removed from service by the Divisional Superintendent as his original appointment was by the Agent of the then North Western Railway.
4. The Railway have denied all these allegations and have pleaded that the petitioner was not appointed by the Agent but by the Divisional Superintendent, Karachi, with whom there was a contract entered into. They have also disputed the other facts which have been alleged by the petitioner. They further pleaded that he was rightly removed from service, that there was no infringement of any rules of the Railway or of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and that the charges against the petitioner were serious and were found to have been proved by the Committee of Enquiry. They placed on the record a large number of documents Including the finding of the Divisional Superintendent, Delhi, wherein charges of misbehaviour as a servant of the Railway- were held proved against him. The charge consisted of appointment by the petitioner of junior persons in supersession of the rights of senior persons, or his taking advan-tage of his official position and thus making the women-folk of servants subordinate to him to submit to sexual intercourse with him & of taking illegal gratification & receiving money from certain subordinates in order to hush up police action against them. There are a large number of facts which are alleged by one party and denied by the other. The very fact as to who appointed the petitioner is in dispute. Where facts themselves are disputed, this Court will not issue any writ or order under Article 226. This is what was held by a Division Bench of this Court in - 'Nanbat Rai v. Union of India', AIR 1953 Punj 137 (A), following the rule laid down in - 'Rex v. Bloomsbury Income-tax Commrs', 1915-3 K. B. 768 at p. 797 (B), and in - 'R. v. Swansea Income-tax Commrs'. 1B25-2 K. B. 250 at p. 252, and 256 (C). In the 9th volume of Hailsham's Edition of the Laws of England similar statement of law is given in paragraph 1493 at page 888.
5. I would therefore dismiss this petition and discharge the rule. The petitioner will pay the costs of the opposite party. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/-.
Haranam Singh, J.
6. I agree.