Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, K. M. Joseph, JJ.
Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Dubey – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3820 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32580 of 2017)
Decided On : 25-11-2020
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Scope of Judicial Review – High Court must not act as an appellate authority and re-appreciate evidence led before enquiry officer – High Court under Article 226 of Constitution is not a court of appeal over decision of authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant – It is not the function of High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review evidence and arrive at an independent finding on evidence – High Court may, however interfere where departmental authority which has held proceedings against delinquent officer are inconsistent with principles of natural justice, where findings are based on no evidence which may reasonably support conclusion that delinquent officer is guilty of charge, or in violation of statutory rules prescribing mode of enquiry, or authorities were actuated by some extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair decision – Findings of fact reached by an inferior court or Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, are not re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings – An error of law which is apparent on face of record can be corrected by a writ court, but not an error of fact, however grave it may be – A finding of fact recorded by Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that material evidence adduced before Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. (Para 12.1)
(B) Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 – Rule 153 – Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 – Section 11 – Reinstatement in service – Charges of gross neglect of duty and abuse of authority – Reversal of order of compulsory retirement passed by statutory authorities against respondent, followed by order of re-instatement with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages – There is no allegation of malafides against disciplinary authority or lack of competence of disciplinary authority in passing order of compulsory retirement, or of a breach of principles of natural justice or that findings were based on no evidence – High Court concluded by holding that charge was not so serious so as to warrant extreme punishment of removal from service, as there was no imputation of connivance or corrupt practices – Such findings are erroneous, since Respondent has not been awarded punishment of removal from service, but compulsory retirement from service – A police officer in Railway Protection Force is required to maintain a high standard of integrity in discharge of his official functions – Charges proved against Respondent were of neglect of duty which resulted in pecuniary loss to Railways – Respondent was a Sub-Inspector in Railway Police discharging an office of trust and confidence which required absolute integrity – High Court was not justified in setting aside order of compulsory retirement and directing re-instatement with consequential benefits and payment of back wages to the extent of 50% – Judgment of High Court set aside and Order of compulsory retirement restored. (Paras 12.2, 12.4, 12.6 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Respondent was appointed in 1984 as a Constable with the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F) in Jhansi. On 28.02.2006, he was posted as SIPF(Adhoc) Sub-Inspector at the Pulgaon Railway Station, Maharashtra (Outpost). Issue which has arisen for our consideration is the validity of the Judgment passed by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed by the statutory authorities against the respondent, and substituting it by an order of re-instatement with all consequential benefits, and 50% back wages.
Findings of Court:
The primary object of constituting the Railway Protection Force is to secure better “protection and security of the railway property.” The restricted power of arrest and search conferred on members of this Force is incidental to the efficient discharge of their primary duty to protect and safeguard railway property, and to uphold the law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The issue which has arisen for our consideration is the validity of the Judgment passed by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed by the statutory authorities against the respondent, and substituting it by an order of re-instatement with all consequential benefits, and 50% backwages.
2. The Respondent was appointed in 1984 as a Constable with the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F) in Jhansi. On 28.02.2006, he was posted as SIPF(Adhoc) Sub-Inspector at the Pulgaon Railway Station, Maharashtra (Outpost).
3. On 11.12.2006, the Respondent was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry. On 04.01.2007, a charge sheet was issued for major penalty under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 by the Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner R.P.F. The charges framed were:
“(1) GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY in that you failed to prevent and detect with due promptitude and diligence: -
(a) The theft of 02 Nos. of Primary injections Kit Valued Rs. 28,000/- approx. from traction Sub-Station located at Km, No. 664/20-24 near Badnera Railway Station reported on 04.04.2006.
(b) The theft of 19 CST-9 Plates kept at Km. No. 678/13-15 between Railway Station Makhed-Timtala reported on 21.11.2006 and to submit the FIR and case diary related to the said case to office of Sr. DSC/RPF/Nagpur.
(c) The theft of one Coach Trolley of Lot No. 14-04-06-02-2281 kept at Km. No.672/32 between Railway Stations Timtala-Malkhed reported on 05.12.2006
(2) “ABUSE OF AUTHORITY” in that you used unnecessary Violence toward a passenger named Shaikh Ibrahim at the waiting room of Pulgaon Railway Station on 31.10.2006.”
4. The Enquiry Officer (E.O) vide his Report dated 22.06.2007 exonerated the Respondent of charge 1(a) as the same was not proved, Charges 1(b), (c) and 2 were found to be proved.
5. On 12.07.2007, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Nagpur, accepted the findings of the E.O. In view of the gravity of the charges of gross neglect of duty and abuse of authority, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect.
6. The Respondent preferred an Appeal before the DIG-cum- Additional Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F Mumbai.
The Appellate Authority partially allowed the Appeal, upholding the findings with respect to charges 1(b) and 1(c). Charge 1(b) pertained to the theft of 19 CST-9 plates; on verification, it was found that the shortage was of 6 pairs of CST-9 plates. Charge 1(c) was a special report case pertaining to the theft of 1 coach trolley valued at Rs. 28,000 and was found to have been proved. However, the appellate authority held that these charges did not warrant the extreme punishment of removal from service as there was no imputation of connivance or corrupt practice against the Respondent.
With respect to charge No. 2, it was held that the said charge was not proved, since no witness in support of this charge had been examined. The E.O had relied upon the complaint registered by a passenger-Shaikh Ibrahim in the complaint book of the Pulgaon Railway Station, which was found to have been proved by the E.O., without holding a preliminary enquiry, or examining the complainant. The other evidence in support of this charge was a report submitted by the Inspector, R.P.F Wardha about the complaint lodged at the Pulgaon Railway Station of the incident. As per confidential information received, it was informed that the Respondent was beating people and collecting money at the Pulgaon Railway Station, which led to discontentment amongst the people, and led to a dharna and agitation for transfer of the Respondent from the Pulgaon Railway Station. The Appellate Authority held that the said report had no evidentiary value in support of the charge. Consequently, charge 2 was held not to be proved.
The Appellate Authority vide Order dated 05.09.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
