IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to natural justice principles; findings based on evidence are upheld unless proven perverse.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. The writ petitioner is a constable in Railway Protection Force. He is governed by the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. On certain allegations of mis-conduct, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty by the disciplinary authority and punishment of penalty of reduction of his pay by two stages in the existing scale for a period of three years with cumulative effect was inflicted. His appeal and thereafter his revision before competent authorities were duly considered and were disposed of against him. It is in those circumstances, invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer: -

"this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. D/XP.227/158/2005/16, in Divisional Order No. 06/2006 dated 08-02-2006 of the 1st respondent by which penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the existing scale of Rs. 3200-4900 for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect, and the 2nd respondent by Proceedings No. D/XP.227/158/2005/16, in Divisional Order No. 28/2006 dated 22-03-2006 rejected the appeal, and the same was confirmed by the 1st respondent by Proceedings No. X/P.227/153/Appeal/2006-20, Force Order No. 136/2006, dated 11-08-2006 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of principles of natural justice and total non application of mind and to quash or set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders, which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. On behalf of respondents, a counter affidavit was filed containing elaborate reply to the various contentions raised in the writ petition. The respondents sought dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, the learned counsel for writ petitioner and Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagnadutt, the learned standing counsel for Central Government submitted arguments. Learned counsel on both sides cited precedent.

4. On behalf of writ petitioner, it is contended

That the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. The appellant authority and revisional authority mechanically disposed of the case without assigning any reasons.

The enquiry officer failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions especially Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987.

That the enquiry officer was appointed along with charge memo which is unknown to law.

No presenting officer was appointed and the enquiry officer himself examined the witnesses and cross-examined the writ petitioner.

The incident which is a subject matter of enquiry took place before TC office but the TC was not examined.

Initiation of enquiry was only because of a news item published in the newspapers and the correspondent of the news item was not examined. That the explanation of the writ petitioner was not considered by the enquiry officer.

That the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the charges proved.

5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner brought attention of this court to Rules 146, 148, 153, 212, 217 of RPF Rules, 1987 and cited: -

1. State of Karnataka V. Umesh 2022 INSC 322 : (2022) 6 sCC 563

2. Brij Bihari Singh V. Bihar State Financial Corporation 2015 INSC 847 : (2015) 17 SCC 541

3. Deokinandan Sharma V. Union of India (2001) 5 sCC 340

4. Union of India V. Ram Lakhan Sharma 2018 INSC 558 : 2018) 7 SCC 670

5. Ch.Appala Reddy V. Eastern Power Distribution 2005 (3) ALT 632 (AP) (DB)

6. Learned standing counsel for Central Government representing the respondents contended that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and that there was no deviation and that the appellate authority and the revisional authority acted in accordance with the Rules 217 and 219 respectively and the orders impugned are based on evidence and supp