The petitioner is working as Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), in the Guntakal Division. He filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, vide Memo dated 21-09-2005, issued by the respondent herein, as arbitrary and illegal.

The facts that gave raise to the filing of this writ petition, are as under:

The Station House Officer, Narpala police station of Anantapur District, registered Crime No.44 of 2001 against the petitioner alleging that he has abused the Daliths, named in the First Information Report, with reference to their caste, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"). The same has been taken up as P.R.C. No. 154 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur.

2. Alleging that the petitioner did not attend the Court on the due date, the trial Court is said to have issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner on 21-01-2005. The Station House Officer addressed a letter, narrating the said facts, to the respondent herein, and it was received by the respondent on 07-01-2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody on 22-01-2005 and was released on bail on 03-02-2005.

3. In view of the above, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 24-01-2005. Three months thereafter, the respondent reviewed the matter and passed an order dated 27-04-2005 reinstating the petitioner into service. The impugned charge memo is issued proposing to conduct departmental proceedings, on a charge that the petitioner had acted in a manner that has resulted in disrepute to the RPF.

4. The petitioner contends that the Criminal case filed against him is still pending trial, and if he is required to defend himself in the departmental proceedings, it would result in prejudice to him.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the circumstances that led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings are narrated. It is stated that Rule 146.4 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short "RPF Rules") is attracted, inasmuch as the petitioner has brought disrepute to the RPF by having been subjected to judicial custody for a period of eleven days. It is further contended that there is no bar for the administration to initiate disciplinary proceedings even while the criminal case is pending. The very involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is said to have resulted in discredit to the reputation of the RPF.

6. Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no basis for the respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, particularly when the criminal case is pending. He contends that the petitioner was taken into judicial custody only after obtaining permission from the respondent, and in fact, an order of suspension was passed against the petitioner.

He contends that when the respondent was very much convinced that the petitioner deserves to be reinstated, it cannot be said that the petitioner has brought disrepute to the RPF at a time when the criminal case is pending.

7. Sri J. Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the purport of disciplinary proceedings initiated through the impugned Memo is different from the one in the criminal case. According to the learned standing counsel, the respondent is not required to await the outcome of the criminal case and the facts, which are on record as of now, are sufficient to proceed with the departmental enquiry.

8. The charge levelled against the petitioner through the impugned Memo reads as under:

"Head Constable A. Peddanna, No.454 working in Divisional Reserve/Guntakal was arrested by local police/Narpala on 21-01-2005atGuntaka