Questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 20-01-1995, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service, as confirmed in proceedings dated 16-04-1996 of the 2nd respondent and further confirmed in the revisional order dated 5/6-01-1999 of the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Railway Protection Force (for short R.P.F) Constable on 26-08-1985. According to the petitioner, after completion of duty on 30-09-1994, and on coming to know that his wife was behaving abnormally, he went to his native place. Petitioner contends that he gave a Security Control Message on 02-10-1994 at about 5.30 a.m. seeking ten days leave, since his wife had expired. Petitioner submits that his father-in-law gave a false complaint against him and his parents in C.K. Dinne police station and that he was arrested on 02-1 0-1994 itself.

3. The 1st respondent issued a charge sheet on 09-11-1994 and appointed Sri K. Neelakantha Rao, Inspector of R.P.F. as the enquiry officer. The enquiry was first held on 18-11-1994 and on 06-12-1994 the petitioners preliminary statement was recorded in the Central Prison, Cuddapah, consequent on permission being accorded by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddapah dated 26-11-1994. Petitioner would contend that his statement was taken under duress, that the enquiry was conducted on 16-12-1994 and Sri K. Hussainappa, Sub-Inspector, R.P.F. and Sri K. Subbarayudu. Assistant Sub-Inspector of Local Police were examined as prosecution witnesses. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 23-12-1994 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved. The petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 26-12-1994 to which he submitted his explanation. The 1st respondent, thereafter, passed the order of removal from service vide proceedings dated 20-01-1995. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent and the order of punishment was confirmed vide proceedings dated 16-06-1996. During the pendency- of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was acquitted in S.C.No.80 of 1995 on the ground that there was no incriminating material that he had ill-treated and harassed his wife. Enclosing the copy of the judgment in S.C. No. 80 of 1995 the petitioner preferred the revision petition to the 3rd respondent which was rejected by proceedings dated 5/6-01-1999.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner, after performing night duty on 30-09-1994/01-10-1994, left headquarters without obtaining permission from the Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force on coming to know that his wife was behaving abnormally. The respondent denied the allegation that the petitioner had given a "Security control message" on 02-10-1994 seeking ten days leave on the ground that his wife had expired. According to the respondents, the petitioner only informed about his wife having committed suicide to the Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force through security control. The petitioner did not ask for leave and had not sent a telegram or a leave application. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested on 22-10-1994 in Cr. No. 59 of 1994. The Disciplinary authority placed the petitioner under suspension and issued a major penalty charge sheet under Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987. It is stated that an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a regular departmental enquiry as per rule 153.5 of the RPF Rules, 1987 and that the enquiry officer initially fixed the date of enquiry as 18-11-1994. It is stated that after obtaining permission from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddapah, the departmental enquiry was conducted on 06-12-1994 and the preliminary statement of the petitioner was recorded, by the enquiry officer, in the central prison. Respondent denies the allegation that the petitioners statement was taken