Back
1993 Supreme(AP) 285
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK
N.H.Lamani - Appellant
Versus
Central Government, Ministry for railways, New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 06-21-93
An incident outside office premises and duty hours, with no complaint from the victim, cannot be considered as an offence relatable to the duties of an RPF member, and any enquiry and punishment based on assumptions and presumptions are void ab initio.
Headnote:
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION - INCIDENT OUTSIDE OFFICE PREMISES AND DUTY HOURS - NO COMPLAINT BY VICTIM - ENQUIRY AND PUNISHMENT BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS - VOID AB INITIO - REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES ORDERED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was charged with assaulting a fellow constable on two occasions, one of which occurred outside office premises and duty hours. The charges were based on an enquiry report and the petitioner was removed from service. He challenged the order of removal, arguing that the incidents did not fall within the definition of "act committed while on duty" and "within the office premises".
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident outside office premises and duty hours could not be considered as an offence relatable to the duties of an RPF member. It also noted that there was no complaint from the victim regarding the alleged incident that took place during duty hours. The court held that the enquiry and punishment based on assumptions and presumptions were void ab initio.
Issues: 1. Whether the incident outside office premises and duty hours fell within the definition of "act committed while on duty" and "within the office premises". 2. Whether the enquiry and punishment based on assumptions and presumptions were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Meerut, which held that acts of misconduct committed outside the premises of the establishment or its vicinity are not per se misconduct unless they are specifically enumerated in the conditions of service. 2. The court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of A. P. vs. C. Venkata Rao, which held that the High Court can interfere where the departmental authorities have acted in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of removal and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with back wages for half of the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
( 1 ) PETITIONER entered into service of the Railway Protection Force on 15-6-1970 as rakshak , which is now re-designated as constable of RPF . Subsequently, he was promoted as Naik on 3-7-1986. He had put in around 15 years of service without any blemish and had earned some monetary awards and few merit certificates. While so, under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ), a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner, which was received by him on 14-4-90. The charges are as under:" 1. He assaulted the off duty constable 758 D. S. Naik of Hubli Post at about 2230 hours of 15-3-90 and beaten him with the help of four outsiders near railway Quarter No. 477 in Cement Chawl, Hubli causing serious head injuries to the constable. 2. He made similar attempt on 5-3-90 at MRJ Pay Office to assault the said constable with rifle and knife while both of them on cash escort duties with separate pay clerks at Miraj Circle. 3. He was arrested by PSI /keshwapur Police Station Hubli in Crime no. 30-90 U/sec. 324, 323, 504 read with 34 IPC in connection with the incident of assault on D. S. Naik at Hubli on 15-3-90. 4. By the said acts, the Naik N. H. Lamani had violated the para 3 (i) (iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and thereby unbecoming of railway servant in general and RPF in particular. "
( 2 ) THE Enquiry Officer found first part of charge No. 1 i. e. , the petitioner assaulted the off-duty constable 758 D. S. Naik of Hubli post at about 22-30 hours (10-30 p. m.) on 15-3-1990, as not proved. However, the Enquiry Officer found that the later part of charge No. l, i. e. , the petitioner with the help of four outsiders beat Constable 758 D. S. Naik near railway quarter No. 477 and caused serious head injuries, was proved. The finding as regards charge No. 2 is that pointing out a knife at D. S. Naik by the petitioner does not necessarily mean that he was trying to stab him and, therefore, that part of the charge was not proved. However, since the witnesses corroborated that the petitioner tried to hit D. S. Naik with rifle, it Was proved. As regards charge Nos. 3 and 4 i. e. , the arrest of the petitioner and violation of service rules, the Enquiry Officer found them as proved.
( 3 ) THE entire controversy rests on two incidents - (i) the incident, which is said to have taken place on 15-3-1990 at about 10-30 p. m. near railway quarter no. 477 in Cement Chawl, Hubli causing serious head injury to one D. S. Naik, constable and (ii) the incident which is said to have taken place on 5-3-1990 at miraj Pay Office resulting in assault on D. S. Naik by the petitioner with the help of a rifle and a knife. Consequent upon the incident of 15-3-1990, Keshwapur police arrested the petitioner and registered a case in Crime No. 30/90 under sections 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Oncoming to know of this incident and also on coming to know that D. S. Naik was admitted in the hospital, the officials of the Railway Protection Force made investigation as to the circumstances leading to the incident and a report dated 7-4-90 was submitted by one L. N. Tahiliani, the then Inspector, RPF Post, Hubli, pursuant to which charges were framed against the petitioner. The Divisional security Commissioner, RPF, the 4th respondent, initiated enquiry by appointing one Sunil Kumar Sinha, ASC/hubli, who after due enquiry, held that the charges were proved more or less . On the basis of the recommendation of the enquiry Officer, the 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 11-9-1990 removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. As against the above proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Security commissioner, RPF, the 3rd respondent on 20-9-1990, which was also dismissed affirming the proceedings of the 4th respondent. As against the dismissal of the appeal, the matter was carried by way of a further appeal to the Direc
