Judgment 1. THE petitioner in this Rule challenges an order of removal from service issued by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (P), Eastern Railway, Howrah, dated 11-6-1976. The said order was to be effective from 22nd June, 1976. 2. SHORTLY stated, the facts are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that while working as fireman group h in Howrah Loco-shed, the petitioner changed his name from Nirmal Chandra Nag to Nirendra Lal Sen by making an affidavit for the purpose of deriving undue benefits by declaring himself to have passed Matriculation Examination in 1944 on the basis of a certificate issued in favour of some other N.L. Sen and had thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and honesty as a railway employee, violating Rule 3 (1)of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966. It was further alleged that the said Matriculation certificate was intended to be utilised in support of the claim of the petitioner for the post of Leading fireman Group A. The enquiry officer found that the allegations against petitioner had been proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with the report of the enquiry officer and directed issue of show cause notice for his removal from service. It is alleged by the petitioner that this show cause notice was never served on him. From the side of the respondents, reliance was placed on the statement, made in the order of removal, which is the subject matter of challenge in this proceeding, to the effect that the petitioner refused to accept service of this second show cause notice. Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, Senior standing Counsel, appearing with Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Advocate in support of the Rule, has contended that the en-tire proceeding, including the final order of dismissal, is liable to be quashed on the ground of failure of the respondents to comply with the relevant rules at different stages. In developing the aforesaid point, Mr. Chatterjee has contended that there has been a violation of Rule 9 sub-rule 7 inasmuch as the petitioner was not given access to the relevant documents, inspection of which was asked for by him; secondly, it has been contended that the copy of the report of the assistant Mechanical Engineer not having been served on him, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice; thirdly, Mr. Chatterjee has contended that the second show cause notice was never served on the petitioners. In addition to the above instances of violation of the rules in the matter of conducting the enquiry and passing the order of removal, there was another contention, raised by Mr. Chatterjee, namely that the order of removal is not a speaking order as required by the relevant rules, inasmuch as, it does not record the findings on the charges against the petitioner. According to Mr. Chatterjee, reasons for arriving at a particular finding may not be necessary but the finding itself has to be recorded. 3. MR. P. K. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has relied upon the statements in his Affidavit in opposition and records which were produced by him before this Court, relating to the impugned disciplinary proceeding and the impugned order of removal. The learned Advocates for the petitioners also took inspection of such records. On the basis of such records, Mr. Ghosh has contended that there is absolutely no merit in the contentions, raised on behalf of the petitioner, and all relevant rules has been strictly complied with and, accordingly, he has prayed that the rule should be discharged. 4. RULE 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 contains the procedure for imposition of major penalties. By Sub-rule 6 of the said rules regarding documents, the only requirement prescribed to be followed by the disciplinary authority, is that the list of documents has to be given to the delinquent employee along with articles of charge by buy-rule 7, the delinquent employee is permuted to ask for inspection of the said documents for preparation of his defence and he may do so within 10 days from the date of receipt of the articles of charge to him. in the present case, although the petitioner has alleged that the copies of the documents were never sent to him in spite of requests and demands for the same, it is found from his representation, dated 15th march, 1976, that he merely wanted to inspect the documents, mentioned in annexure III to the charge-sheet, and wanted to take extracts thereof. In addition, the petitioner wanted the respondents to requisition the service of the railway hand-writing expert. In addition, the petitioner wanted the respondents to requisition the service of the railway hand-writing expert. In an earlier representation, dated 4th of December, 1975, however, the petitioner did not mention about inspection or taking extracts of any document or examination of hand-writing expert, as was mentioned in the later representation referred to above but only communicated his intention to avail of service of the named defence helper, Shri Monoj Bose. Mr. P. K. Ghosh has placed the representation of the delinquent dated 15th of March, 1976 which contains list of the documents he wanted to inspect. It is to be noted in the above connection that, in terms of Sub-rules 7, the inspection has io be asked for within 10 days from the date of receipt, and has to be completed within further 10 days. In the instant case, in spite of such period of time having been specimen in the articles of charge, the petitioner did not ask for inspection or extract of the copies of the documents but asked for sum inspection (vide his letter dated 15th march, 1976) after submission of his defence. In my view the prayer for inspection was not bonafide inasmuch as the charge-sheet, which is dated 25th of November, 1975, in clauses 2, and 3 thereof specifically made in clear that the documents, mentioned in the charge-sheet, which were to be inspected should be notified within 10 days from the date of receipt of the memorandum, indicating the relevance of the documents, so intended to be inspected. Request made as later stages of the enquiry, it was also made clear, was not to be entertained without sufficient cause being shown for such belated request. From the materials, adduced on behalf of the respondents, do not find there was any violation of rules, as alleged by the petitioner. Secondly, Mr. Chatterjee has argued that the copy of the report of the Assistant mechanical Engineer, dated 20. 5. 76 was not given to the petitioner and, accordingly, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that the report of the disciplinary authority was placed before the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (P), Howrah, who was also one of the disciplinary authorities within the terms of the Railway servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, mentioned above, having power to impose punishment upto reduction to a lower stage in a time scale. It appears that the report of the disciplinary authority was placed before the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (P), Howrah, who was also one of the disciplinary authorities within the terms of the Railway servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, mentioned above, having power to impose punishment upto reduction to a lower stage in a time scale. The said Assistant Mechanical Engineer, by his aforesaid report, found the petitioner guilty and directed the placing of the said report before the higher authority namely, Divisional Mechanical engineer, obviously for a more stringent punishment. It further appeals from the records produced that, on the very same day, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer Howrah, directed issue of snow cause notice for removal from service. The said actions on the part of the Assistant Mechanical engineer as also the Divisional Mechanical Engineer were made in compliance with rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Mules. In terms of the Rule 10 Sub-rule 5, as existing at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was to be furnished merely with a copy of the report of the enquiry held by the enquiring officer. It further appears that along with the second show cause notice a copy of the enquiry report also was enclosed. Therefore, what was required under Rule 10 Sub-rule 5 had been complied with and there was no violation of the said rule. It is, however, to be seen hereinafter as to whether the second show cause notice was properly served on the delinquent employee or whether there was any violation of any relevant rule governing such services and in case there was any such violation what was the effect thereof. It may noted in this connection that the above point regarding improper service on the delinquent employee arose after the records were produced on behalf of the respondents, but till then the only allegation was that the second show cause had not at all been served or even attempted to be served and, accordingly, submissions were made to the effect that it was obligatory on the part of the employer to serve a second show cause notice inasmuch as the amendment of the Railway rules which had been made on the lines of amended article 311 of the constitution became operative on or about 19. 11. 11. 78 but as the respondents did not take a stand that no show cause notice regarding proposed punishment was needed to be served but on the contrary-took a stand that such second show cause notice had, in law, been served, it does not become necessary for me to deal with the said submission of Mr. Chatterjee. 5. THE other point which was urged by Mr. Chatterjee was regarding appointment of defence helper to assist the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner initially, by his letter, dated 4th of December, 1975, appointed Mr. Monoj Bose, as his defence helper. The said nomination was, however, changed (withdrawn) by the petitioner's representation dated 15th of March, 1976, where the petitioner indicated that he would nominate another defence helper as soon as possible. It may be noted in this connection that sub-rule 13 of Rule 9 permits a Railway servant to present his case with the assistance of any other railway servant but nomination of an assisting Railway servant in terms of note (2) to Sub-rule 13 should be made within 20 days from the date of the appointment of the Enquiring authority. In the present case in terms of clause 4 of the charge-sheet the petitioner was informed that he could nominate one or more persons in order of preference to assist him and furnish necessary consent letters from such nominees. The enquiry officer was appointed on 30. 12. 75, the enquiry was proposed to be held on 24th of February, 1976. The petitioner, by his letter, dated 23rd of February 1976 informed the enquiry officer about unavailability of the proposed defence helper. The enquiry was postponed till 12th of March, 1976, when, again, due to absence of the defence helper, the enquiry was adjourned and was fixed on 30th march, 1976 to enable the petitioner to bring his defence helper. A written of the said date was sent to the petitioner by the Enquiry officer. As on 27th March 1976, the petitioner made a representation to the Enquiry officer, inter alia, asking for postponment of the enquiry proposed to be held on the 30th march, 1976 for the purpose of enabling [him to nominate a suitable defence helper at the appropriate stage (vide Annexure G to the petition), the enquiry, was postponed again on 30th March, 1976 giving 10 days time to the petitioner to submit his defence statement. Although, on 30th march, 1976 it appears, the petitioner made a statement before the enquiry officer, complaining of not being given any opportunity to appoint another suitable defence helper, this grivance of the petitioner is, in my view, not tenable in the facts of the present case. Not only has there been no violation of any relevant Rule but it cannot also be accepted that opportunity was not given to the petitioner to appoint his defence helper inasmuch as he failed to nominate a person in place of Shri Monoj Bose Whom he initially appointed as defence helper and later withdrew, the enquiry commenced and, in fact, tried to delay the holding of the enquiry on such ground and other grounds from time to time. It is not correct by alleged in the petition on the basis of annexure E that, in place of shri Monoj Bose, the petitioner appointed Shri S. K, Chakravorty as his defence helper. Annexure E merely indicated his intention to submit nomination of a new defence helper without naming any particular person for the purpose. 6. REGARDING the service of the second show cause notice, if has been con)tended by Mr. Chatterjee that even assuming that such a second show cause was sought to be served, the same was not served in compliance with Rule 26 of the railway Servants (Danda) Rules. The said rule provided for service of the notice on the Railway servant either in person or by Registered post. It is not disputed in the present case that no attempt was made to serve the Railway servant by Registered post. But it is to he noted that the modes of service prescribed by the Rules are alternative modes and if one mode was resorted to and there was refusal from the side of the delinquent employee, it was not obligatory for the Railway administration to serve the delinquent employee by the other alternative mode. In this particular case, on consideration of the materials on record. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the factum of due tender of the 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner, following the first mode of personal service, and, accordingly, refusal by him to accept such personal service is sufficient for the authorities to treat it as good service. Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the factum of due tender of the 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner, following the first mode of personal service, and, accordingly, refusal by him to accept such personal service is sufficient for the authorities to treat it as good service. Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of removal from service is not an order in accordance with Rule 10 (Sub-rule 5) of the Railway servants Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that, although reasons for the finding of guilt for imposition of penalty need not be given, the finding itself has to be recorded before imposition of penalty (Rule 10 Sub-rule 5. Mr. P. K. Ghosh, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the impugned order of penalty fully satisfies the above test. He has pointed out that, in the order, issuing the relative show cause notice, there was a tentative finding that the charges against the petitioner have been proved and he has submitted that, if any explanation had been given by the petitioner, then only the question of deviation from the tentative finding might have arisen but, since no explanation was tendered and since the petitioner's case that the second show cause notice was never issued or served is not tenable on face of the records, there was no scope for alteration in the state of affairs, as existing on the date of issuance of the second show cause notice, and there was no necessity or occasion for re-consideration of the finding, tentatively made, while issuing the second show cause notice. I find there is considerable, force in this submission of Mr. Ghosh. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority, while directing the issue of the second show cause notice, found tentatively that the charges against the petitioner, as made and alleged, had been proved and, in the final order of penalty, the disciplinary authority has also recorded a finding of the petitioner being guilty of the charges of impersonification and failure to maintain absolute integrity and honesty as a Railway employee. 7. IN the above connection Mr. 7. IN the above connection Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the principles laid down in the Supreme Court decisions reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2083, 1976 Supreme Court 1785 (Paragraph 6), 1968 Supreme Court page 266 (Paragraph 19) but in my view the above decisions of the Supreme Court are of no help to Mr. Chatterjee's Client. They do lay down that the principles of natural justice have to be observed with regard to quasi judical orders unless they are excluded, expressly or by necessary implication, by relevant statutory provisions, or, in other words, principles of natural justice may supplement the statutory provisions but cannot supplant the same (vide AIR 1971 Supreme Court page 40 and AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 563. 8. IN the instant case, Rule 10 expressly laid down that only findings need be recorded and as I have found above that test is fully satisfied by the impugned order of penalty, this submission of Mr. Chatterjee also fails. I find therefore that there has been no violation, in the instant case, of the requirement of the Railway Servants (D and A) Rules 1968 and accordingly I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of penalty. 9. APART from my findings made above, I also hold that as there is a provision for an appeal, the failure of the petitioner to prefer the necessary appeal within the time allowed by law disentitles him to any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction. 10. I accordingly discharge this Rule with costs, hearing fee being assessed at 3 gms. Original records lying in the custody of the respondents which were handed over by Mr. P. K. Ghosh in course of hearing, be returned to him. Rule discharged. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 32 - Label, Explanation if includes a Crown Cork - Identifiable address printed on Crown Cork, whether compliance with Rule 32 (b). An application for quashing the charge framed under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, and the proceedings as well was moved by the petitioner Company on the ground that the paper label affixed to crown cork of the bottles containing carbonated water had given the address of the company in question and as such no breach of Rule 32 (b) of the Rules was occasioned. Held, under explanation to Rule 32 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration rules the term "label" includes a "crown cork" [paragraph 7] there has been substantial compliance with Rule 32 (b) of the said Rules since the address given on the crown Corks is sufficient to locate the reputed concern in question. On the strength of the address given on the said crown corks the concerned authorities or other persons cannot have any difficult in locating the said concern. The charge framed is liable to be set aside because no offence has been prima facie made out against the petitioner. AIR 1971 SC 844 relied on. [paragraph 8] decisions referred to : dwarka Nath and anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1971 SC 844-1971 Cr. L J 1290