Back
1994 Supreme(Cal) 256
High Court Of Calcutta
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee
SANKAR THAKUR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C. O. 13801 Of 1989
Decided On : 08/18/1994
Achinta Kumar Majmudar, ASOKE DEY, Sarajit Sen
The court reiterated that the enquiry officer's finding of guilt will not be interfered with unless it is perverse or manifestly contrary to or not borne out by the evidence, and that the punishment imposed will not be considered disproportionate if the Disciplinary Authority has chosen to impose a major penalty for a fresh misconduct after the employee has been punished departmentally with minor penalties for earlier delinquencies.
Headnote:
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE - Disciplinary Proceedings - Charge-sheet - Sufficiency - Opportunity to Inspect Documents - Denial of Reasonable Opportunity - Perverse Finding - Punishment of Removal from Service - Disproportionate Punishment - Assistance of Co-employee in Enquiry Proceeding.
Fact of the Case:
A Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable was served with a suspension order for an act of indiscipline, which was later revoked. A domestic enquiry was initiated against him for creating nuisance and misbehaving with a doctor on duty at a hospital. The constable challenged the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer's finding, and the show-cause notice proposing removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charge-sheet was not defective for not specifying the documents and witnesses to be relied upon, as the petitioner was granted the opportunity to inspect and extract the relevant documents. The court also found that the enquiry officer's finding of guilt was not perverse or contrary to the evidence. The court further held that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate considering the petitioner's previous disciplinary record and the gravity of the misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge-sheet was defective for not specifying the documents and witnesses to be relied upon? 2. Whether the enquiry officer's finding of guilt was perverse or contrary to the evidence? 3. Whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate? 4. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to take the assistance of a co-employee in the enquiry proceeding?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the charge-sheet was not defective as the petitioner was granted the opportunity to inspect and extract the relevant documents, which fulfilled the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 2. The court held that the enquiry officer's finding of guilt was not perverse or contrary to the evidence, as there was sufficient evidence to support the finding. 3. The court held that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate considering the petitioner's previous disciplinary record and the gravity of the misconduct. 4. The court held that the petitioner was not denied the opportunity to take the assistance of a co-employee in the enquiry proceeding, as he was allowed to choose a 'friend' from the SHM Division, which was in accordance with the RPF Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.
( 1 ) THE petitioner while serving as a Constable of the Railway Protection Force of South-Eastern Railway was served with a suspension order dated 3-12-87. By that order the petitioner was placed under suspension on ground of act of indiscipline. Subsequently however by an order dated 25-1-88 the said suspension was revoked. A domestic enquiry however was started against the petitioner. The statement of charge had been annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition. The charge against the petitioner was that he created nuisance in G. R. C. hospital premises and also misbehaved with on-duty DMO/casualty at G. R. C. on 1-12-87. In the statement of allegation in connection with the said charge, it is stated that the petitioner had 'c' shift duty on 31-11-87 but he remained absent on that date and sent one intimation of indisposition to the RPF-Post/grc through his daughter and on 1-12-87 he was issued with a medical memo from the post on his demand and the petitioner attended GRC hospital on the date in a drunken state and on being asked about his drunkenness by Dr. (Mrs.) N. Kohili, he started shouting and created nuisance in the hospital premises and also misbehaved with the said doctor and threatened to do harm on the way of her going out of hospital. It is also stated therein that all these acts of misbehaviour on the part of a member of the Disciplined Force amount to gross indiscipline. The charge-sheet was drawn up on 25-1-1988 and was issued under the signature of the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF/s. E. Rly. /shalimar. The petitioner gave reply to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer after completing the enquiry held the petitioner guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer dated 5-1-89 issued a notice to the petitioner, after agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service and invited representation from the petitioner on the proposed penalty by his letter dated 25-7-89 which is Annexure I to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner moved the present writ petition under Article 226 challenging the charge-sheet dated 25-1-89, the finding of the Enquiry Officer dated 5-1-89 and the purported show-cause notice dated 25-7-89. On 7-11-89 the learned Judge who dealt with the matter granted liberty to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit on receiving the order removing him from service. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has challenged the order of the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, S. E. Rly. Kharagpur removing the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure.
( 2 ) IT may be mentioned here that both the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 and the Railway Protection Force Regulations 1966 were repealed by the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner without making any preliminary enquiry into the matter. This however cannot be a ground for quashing the charge-sheet or the domestic enquiry when the petitioner has been asked to meet the specific charge mentioned in the charge-sheet. In this case, it also appears that the charge-sheet contained specific charge against the petitioner and the matter was initiated after the doctor on duty at the GRC hospital made a written complaint about the misconduct of the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not supplied with the documents and the statements of PWs and the names of the PWs were not mentioned in the charge-sheet. This, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, violates natural justice and that being so, the departmental enquiry is liable to be quashed on that ground. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the petitioner also attracts my attention to Annexure-D to the writ petition which is an application made by the petitioner i
