Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prasanna B.Varale, S.M.Modak, JJ.
Sanjay Nhobat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 310 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Rajshekhar Ganesh Panchal, Advocate, A.A.Keri, Advocate, Sarang Gundajwar, Advocate, T.J.Pandian, Advocate

The court emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and allowed the objection about the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer, leading to the remand of the matter for further cross-examination of witnesses by the Petitioner.

Headnote:
Charge-sheet - Railway Protection Force - 146.2(i)(iv), 146.4, 146.6(i)(ii)(iii), 146.7(ii), 147 of RPF Rules 1987 - The court upheld the charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner by the Chief Security Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for further cross-examination of witnesses by the Petitioner.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, an Inspector of Railways Protection Force, challenged the Charge-sheet and Order of dismissal from service issued by the Principal/Chief Security Commissioner, RPF Pune. The charges related to lack of supervision, not maintaining records properly, and not accounting for cash accepted towards cash bail.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the charge-sheet and dismissal order, but remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for further cross-examination of witnesses by the Petitioner.
Issues: Competence of the Disciplinary Authority, Non-appointment of Presenting Officer, Simultaneous prosecution of departmental and Criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no infirmity in the disciplinary inquiry process and rejected the objection about the competency of the enquiry officer and irregularities in the conduct of the departmental enquiry. However, it allowed the objection about the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for further cross-examination of witnesses by the Petitioner.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition, set aside the dismissal order, and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for further cross-examination of witnesses by the Petitioner.

JUDGMENT

S.M.MODAK, J. - By this Petition, the Petitioner-Inspector of Railways Protection Force is challenging the Charge-sheet issued to him and Order of dismissal from service passed in departmental proceedings by Respondent No. 4- Principal/Chief Security Commissioner, RPF Pune. The Petitioner exhausted the remedies available as per Rules and when unsuccessful filed this petition.

2. The main grounds of challenge are:-

(a) Enquiry was conducted by Assistant Security Commissioner and Senior Divisional Security Commissioner who are incompetent to inflict major penalty of dismissal from service and in spite of that they conducted enquiry.

(b) Fact of making over the case by Senior Divisional Security Commissioner to Chief Security Commissioner is not contemplated as per the provisions of Railway Protection Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred as the 1987 Rules).

(d) Even though the Circular says about not conducting departmental enquiry particularly when case is pending still departmental enquiry was conducted during pendency of Criminal proceedings.

(e) Though he was acquitted by the Sessions Court and though it was brought to the notice of the Revisional authority, they have not considered the said fact.

(f) The findings given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.

3. The Respondents supported procedure followed in conducting the enquiry and contended that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the findings are perfectly supported by evidence on record. On this background, we have heard Mr. Rajshekhar Panchal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T. J. Pandian, learned counsel for the Respondents.

4. Perused the record and citations relied upon by both the sides.

5. The relevant facts for initiation of departmental enquiry can be summarized as follows:-

The Petitioner was deputed as Inspector Railway Protection Force Kurla at the relevant period. There was news published in news paper "Mumbai Mirror"? under caption as "RPF officers run fake court on Platform No. 9 to commuters". On that basis preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was submitted. On 17/03/2009 in all 8 persons were arrested for contravening the provisions of Railways Act. They were arrested by raiding team party consisting of RPF persons Shri Amit Kumar Zha, Shri P. P. Singh, Shri V. Pandey and Shri Sambhaji Patil and others. There is an entry to that effect in the Roznama dtd. 17/03/2009 entry no. 56. It was further revealed that only two persons by name Amar Dada Khaj and Sachin Sudam Mane were sent to Railway Court, Mumbai. Whereas there is no corresponding record so far as other six accused persons are concerned either in the bail bond register or in the Railway Act Register. Even no corresponding record is found from the Court papers, so far as these six persons are concerned.

6. That is why the allegation of lack of supervision of the Petitioner over the subordinate staff, not maintaining record properly are the allegations. The Petitioner pleaded that he was not at all responsible for those alleged misconduct and in fact it is the duty of the concerned RPF personnel to maintain records properly and unnecessarily blame is put on me.

7. This is a background of issuing a charge-sheet to the Petitioner. There was a fact finding enquiry by Assistant Security Commissioner Shri S. C. Parhi. He recorded statements of some of the witnesses and even of the Petitioner. Shri Parhi concluded that major penalty Charge-sheet be issued against the Petitioner and he gave report to that effect dtd. 14/06/2010 (page 47). The Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF issued a charge sheet for contravention of a Rule No. 146.2 (i)(iv), 146.4, 146.6(i)(ii)(iii), 146.7 (ii) and 147 of RPF Rules 1987 (page no. 23). on 02/11/2010 (page 23). Enquiry is conducted initially by Assistant Security Commissioner Shri A. T. Tayade and then by Shri Vinod Kumar. Presenting Officer was not appointed in that enquiry. This