Criminal acquittal nullifies departmental discreditable conduct charge based solely on FIR; off-duty personal injury non-disclosure and casual misstatement lack official duty nexus, not violating neglect, disobedience, falsehood rules.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.

1. SUBJECT MATTER :

The Petitioner was working as a Constable under the establishment of Railway Protection Force (hereinafter “the Force” for the sake of brevity). He was chargesheeted on account of certain departmental indiscipline and suffered departmental enquiry.

Vide ‘removal from service’ Order dated 25-02-2021 bearing Division Order No. 09/2021 passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Police Force, Solapur @ the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner was removed from the post of Constable of Wadi Railway Station, Solapur Division. He could not succeed in the Appellate and Revisional proceedings to challenge the punishment order. Thus, the Petitioner herewith challenges the removal order dated 25-02-2021 as also the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.

2. Relevant Rules :

The subject-matter is governed by the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987. All the authorities, provisions referred herein are part of these Rules. Hereinafter those shall be referred as 1987 Rules for the sake of brevity.

For convenience, relevant rules under which the Petitioner was charged, are reproduced here for the sake of convenience.

146.4 Discreditable conduct :

No member of the Force shall act in any manner prejudicial to discipline or conduct himself in such a manner which is reasonably likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Force.

147 offences relatable to duties of enrolled members:

Commission of any of the following act or acts by an enrolled member of the Force –

(i) violation of any duty;

(ii) willful breach or neglect of any provisions of this Act or any rule or of Directives or of any other lawful orders which he is bound to observe or obey;

(iii) disobeying lawful command of superior officers;

146.2 Neglect of duty :

No member of the Force without good and suicient cause shall –

(i) neglect or omit to attend to or fail to carry out with due promptitude and diligence anything which is his duty as a member of the Force to attend to or carry out;

146.3 Disobedience of orders :

No member of the Force shall –

(i) disobey or omit or neglect to promptly carry out any lawful orders, written or otherwise, or

(ii) contravene any provision of the Act, these rules or Directives containing restriction on the private lives of the members of the Force or requiring him to notify the Principal*Chief Security Commissioner concerned that he, or a relation included in his family, has business interest in his jurisdiction within the meaning of these rules and Directives.

146.6 Falsehood or prefabrication :

No member of the Force shall-

(i) knowingly or through neglect make any false, misleading or inaccurate oral or written statement or entry in any record or document made, kept or required for the purpose of Force.

3. Issues under debate :

In the light of peculiar facts of the case, the disciplinary rules and the material before us, here we discuss:

(i) If ‘registration of crime’ is a charge against an employee of the Force for ‘causing Discreditable Conduct against the Force within the meaning of Rule 146.4 of the 1987 Rules’, what is the fate of such charge if the criminal case is dismissed on failure of prosecution to prove the case?

(ii) What defines indiscipline under Rule 147 (i) to (iii) of the 1987 Rules?

(iii) Whether non-disclosure of a personal injury sustained at residence which is not at all concerned about office business, can be regarded as ‘Neglect of Duty’ within the meaning of Rule 146.2 and 146.3 (i) and (ii) of the 1987 Rules?

(iv) A casual statement as regards to cause of personal injury, which admittedly was not