Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.
Sanjoy Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Opposite Parties
C. R. No. 19182 (W) of 1993
Decided On : December 21, 2001
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE RULES - CHARGE-SHEET - BIAS - ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - CONSIDERATION - REINSTATEMENT - ARREAR DUES - SALARIES - CONTINUOUS SERVICE - NO BREAK IN SERVICE - COSTS - WRIT APPLICATION ALLOWED.:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, challenged the charge-sheet, enquiry findings, removal order, and appellate authority's order rejecting his appeal. He alleged bias, violation of statutory provisions, principles of natural justice, and mala fide on the part of the disciplinary authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge-sheet was issued with a biased mind, as the disciplinary authority had already decided to conduct an enquiry and fixed its date and venue before receiving the petitioner's reply to the allegations. The enquiry was also vitiated as it was conducted based on Rule 153.8 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, which was declared ultra vires by two High Court judgments. Additionally, the authority exercised its power mechanically and did not provide the petitioner with relevant materials for his defense, violating the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority also failed to consider the mandatory conditions prescribed under Rule 217.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, while disposing of the appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated due to bias, violation of statutory provisions, and principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the appellate authority acted legally and followed statutory provisions in rejecting the petitioner's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the charge-sheet was issued with a biased mind, as the disciplinary authority had already decided to conduct an enquiry and fixed its date and venue before receiving the petitioner's reply to the allegations. This indicated real bias and violated the principles of natural justice. 2. The court found that the enquiry was vitiated as it was conducted based on Rule 153.8 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, which was declared ultra vires by two High Court judgments. This rendered the enquiry proceedings illegal and unfair. 3. The court held that the authority exercised its power mechanically and did not provide the petitioner with relevant materials for his defense, violating the principles of natural justice. 4. The court found that the appellate authority failed to consider the mandatory conditions prescribed under Rule 217.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, while disposing of the appeal. This rendered the appellate order unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned charge-sheet, enquiry findings, removal order, and appellate order. It directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service, pay him arrear dues, and continue paying his current salaries. The court clarified that the period from the date of removal till the date of the judgment would not be treated as break in service, and the petitioner would be entitled to all benefits, including increments, promotions, and pay revisions.
This writ petition when was moved initially was moved with notice to Union of India the respondent No. 1 on 7.10.93 Rule was issued and Mr. L.N. Jalan appeared for the respondent No. 1 Union of India and waived service of rule. No interim order was passed and Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chaterjee issued directions to file affidavit and the rule was made returnable 14 weeks hence. On 13.6.97 Hon'ble Justice Barin Ghosh passed an order directing the writ petitioner to file necessary requisite for service of the Rule and copies of the writ petition upon the respondents. Liberty was given to the petitioners to mention the matter for being heard after service of the rule upon the respondents is effected. It appears from order sheet that on 21.6.97 requisite as per the direction dated 13.6.97 was filed. It also appears from the records that notices were issued. But on 10.9.2001 and 12.9.2001 when the matter was taken up for hearing no-one appeared on behalf of the respondents neither any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on their behalf. It also appears from the records that Mr. L.N. Jalan learned Advocate filed Vokalatnama on behalf of the Union of India.
2. In the above state of affairs matter was taken up for hearing and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the instant writ proceeding the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet dated 15.4.91, the finding of the enquiry officer dated 27.11.91 the order of removal dated 29.7.92 and also the order of the appellate authority dated 12.4.93. The writ petitioner has also prayed for a declaration of Rules 143(2) and 153(8) of Railway Protection Force Rules as ultra vires.
3. The case as has been made out by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is inter alia as follows:-
The writ petitioner is a Constable working under Railway Protection Force and he was posted at Matibag Yard at the material point of time. Suspension order was issued against the petitioner through Memo dated 16.3.91 and through that memo the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 15.3.91. The suspension order was issued by Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Eastern Railway, Nagpur. Subsequently, the said suspension order was revoked through Memo dated 16.4.91 issued by the said Assistant Security Commissioner with effect from 15.4.91.
4. Subsequently, charge-sheet was issued after a month from the date of withdrawal of suspension order that is on 15.4.91. Along with this Memorandum dated 15.4.91 Articles of charges and statement of allegation were annexed.
5. The petitioner has annexed the charge-sheet as Annexure-C to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Enquiry' Officer gave his findings. Second show cause notice was issued, the petitioner submitted a written reply to the said second show cause notice in 'the nature of representation denying all the allegations against him on the basis of evidence on records. Ultimately, order of removal dated 29.7.92 was passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service.
6. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 12.4.93.
7. As stated earlier, the petitioner has challenged the entire disciplinary proceeding starting from the issuance of charge-sheet to the final order passed by the disciplinary authority and also the order of the appellate authority rejecting his appeal.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire disciplinary proceeding is bad for violation of the statutory provisions, for non-compliance of the principles of natural Justice and because of bias and mala fide on the part of the disciplinary authority and as such the entire disciplinary proceeding should be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order of the appellate authority is also bad because of non-compliance of the statut
AI
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
