Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Arun Kumar Mitra, J.
BRAHMA PANDEY ALIAS B.PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. 306 Of 1999
Decided On : 09/21/2006
CHARGE-SHEET - UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE - RPF RULES, 1987 - RULES 151(1), 152(2), 153 - Preliminary inquiry mandatory before issuing charge-sheet - Charge-sheet indicating closure in mind or biasness - Inquiry finding must be backed by reasons - Inquiry proceeding and charge-sheet set aside - Liberty to proceed against petitioner on same charges.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, was charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence. He challenged the charge-sheet, inquiry proceeding, and command order directing him to join the inquiry on grounds of bias, lack of preliminary inquiry, and absence of reasons in the inquiry finding.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a preliminary inquiry is mandatory before issuing a charge-sheet and that the charge-sheet in the instant case indicated closure in mind or biasness. It also held that the inquiry finding was not backed by reasons and was therefore unsustainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge-sheet was issued without a preliminary inquiry and was therefore biased. 2. Whether the inquiry finding was backed by reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the judgment in V. K. Khanna v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 343, to hold that a charge-sheet indicating the name of the Inquiry Officer, venue, and date of inquiry suggests a pre-determined decision and is therefore biased. 2. The court also relied on settled law that a quasi-judicial authority must provide reasons for its orders, and held that the inquiry finding in the instant case was unsustainable due to the absence of reasons.
Final Decision: The court set aside the inquiry proceeding and charge-sheet but maintained the charges. It directed the respondents to proceed against the petitioner on the same charges in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the RPF Rules, and to conclude the proceedings within six months.
( 1 ) THE writ petition relates to challenge of charge-sheet, inquiry proceeding and a command order directing the petitioner to join the inquiry. Facts in brief are inter alia as follows : -The petitioner is a Constable in the Railway Protection force of C and TE/undal under Asnasol Division, Eastern Railway. The petitioner was charge sheeted and the charges are ; gross misconduct and negligence of duty and it was clarified as :
"when he was working at RPF/tm-Post/chh/crj he was spared to avail one day rest, two days CR, one day cpl and four days CL w. e. f 19. 8. 1995 to 26. 08. 1995 and was supposed to resume his duty on 27. 08. 1995 but instead of joining his duty he overstayed w. e. f. 27. 8. 1995 to 11. 3. 1997 without any authority and proper intimation. " "further when working at C and TE/op/udl he was spared for 30 days lap on 24. 04. 1998 and was supposed to join his duty on 24. 05. 1998 but he overstayed till 31. 07. 1998. "
( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petitioner is a habitual absentee or habitual offender regarding overstay. On these charges the inquiry was started; inquiry continued; the petitioner submitted his representation.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, charge-sheet is vague and in the statement of allegations it is admitted by the authority that the administration received the intimation from his son that his father was getting treatment at ranchi and misconduct and negligence does not arise at that juncture.
( 4 ) THE petitioner challenged this proceeding; inquiry finding as well as the charge-sheet and the command certificate directing the petitioner to join there on the ground that the charge-sheet is biased.
( 5 ) IN the charge-sheet without preliminary inquiry name of the Inquiry officer has been mentioned, venue of the inquiry and date and time has also been mentioned. The petitioner also challenged this inquiry finding on the ground that no reason has been assigned in the finding. The Inquiry Officer acted in a partisan manner and failed to record any reason why the petitioner was found guilty of the charges leveled against him.
( 6 ) THE petitioner also took a ground that the decision making process is bad in law and arbitrary in nature because the proceedings are judicial or quasi-judicial in nature and therefore findings must be based on reason.
( 7 ) THE respondent authorities filed affidavit-in-opposition denying all the allegations made in the writ petition. The respondent authorities in the opposition took the plea that on 11. 3. 1997 the petitioner submitted the unsigned fit certificate and it was not acceptable in terms of the rules.
( 8 ) THE respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 10 further slated that although a letter was received from his son on 11. 12. 1995 i. e. after lapse of 107 days of his absence about his so called sickness but the intimation was not supported with any documentary proof or medical certificate.
( 9 ) IT has been stated in the opposition that as per Rule 152 (2) of RPF rules, 1987 the Assistant Security Commissioner is the competent authority to issue charge under Rule 153 of RPF Rules.
( 10 ) THE respondents categorically dealt with all the paragraphs of the writ petition and stated that the Assistant security Commissioner, Asansol, eastern Railway under whose disciplinary control the petitioner was posted was empowered under Rule 151 sub Rule (1)in Schedule (iii) of RPF Rules, 1987 to issue charge-sheet against the petitioner. So the charge-sheet issued by him is strictly in terms of the rules.
( 11 ) THE respondents in their opposition stated that it is the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to report to nearest Railway Doctor for his treatment if he was so sick but he did not do that and his intimation was received after a lapse of 107 days.
( 12 ) IN the opposition it has been stated that inquiry Officer gave an opportunity to the petitioner and there is no illegality in the proceeding. In the inqui
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
