The impugned action of the Force in issuing the orders of preparation and issuance of a fresh charge-sheet and a full-fledged departmental enquiry could not be sustained under Rule 219.4 (b).

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This matter was heard finally at admission stage on 12th August, 2021. Since it was rising time when the hearing had concluded, we posted it today for dictation of the judgment.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the enquiry was already concluded and yet, a fresh charge-sheet was issued and a fresh enquiry was contemplated. Notice was issued to the respondents on 9th July, 2020. Since none appeared for respondent nos.1 to 5, this Court directed the respondents that they would not pass a final order, though they would be at liberty to conduct the fresh enquiry.

4. The contention of the petitioner as set out in the memo of the petition, can be summarized as under:-

a) A departmental enquiry was initiated in May, 2019 against the petitioner on the ground of forging travelling entries for acquiring excess allowance. This was on a complaint from a Railway employee to the senior authorities of the Railway Protection Force (for short, "Force"). On 22nd July, 2019, an order of punishment, of a minor nature, was issued and the payment of one increment was stopped for a period of six months which would have no effect on his pay scale there beyond (without cumulative effect).

b) An amount of Rs.4,950/- which was alleged to be excess travelling allowance earned by the petitioner on different occasions, was deducted from his monthly salary payable in March, 2019. This was done before initiating the disciplinary proceeding. Pursuant to the punishment, it is stated that the authorities deducted Rs.19,350/- from the salary of the petitioner payable in December, 2019.

c) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice dated 8th November, 2019 was issued to him by respondent no.3, exercising it's powers under Rule 219.4 (b) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. It was stated in the said notice that as insufficient punishment was imposed by respondent no.4 and since the superior authority disagreed with the quantum of punishment, an explanation was sought from the petitioner. The petitioner raised a defence in his reply dated 21.11.2019 that a subsequent fresh enquiry/departmental proceedings for the same misconduct was not permissible. By order dated 2nd December, 2019, respondent no.3 passed an order of withdrawal of the earlier punishment order dated 22.7.2019 and directed respondent no.4 to issue a fresh charge-sheet having regard to a major punishment being in the offing. This was in contravention of Rule 219.4 (b), as per the contention of the petitioner.

d) Pursuant to the notice dated 2.12.2019, a fresh charge-sheet dated 19.12.2019 was issued by respondent no.4 appointing Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Chalisgaon as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has pleaded in paragraph 4 that "letter following procedure, inquiry preliminary and final was conducted by recording statement of witnesses as well as of petitioner and considering substantive objection of petitioner of vitiation of said inquiry in light of second departmental proceedings powers are not specifically there as well as conduction of said second inquiry by officer who has held charge of said post in view of riders laid in Railway Board's Master Circular No.67 issued vide I.No.E(D & A) 2001 RG 6-3 dated 20.10.2002, excepting letter contention of petitioner, respondent no.5 by his divisional order dated 25.6.2020, directed for dropping of said second inquiry dated 19.12.2019 bearing No.BSL/153/DE-14/2019 and issuance of fresh charge-sheet. That immediately another charge-sheet dated 25.6.2020 was issued by respondent no.5."

e) As the respondents realized that the second enquiry was vitiated in the absence of specific powers, a fresh enquiry was directed vide order dated 25.6.2020 and reimbursement of amount deducted from the petitioner in view of the earlier minor punishment awarded.

5. In the ba