Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Padma Khastgir and Mahitosh Majumder, JJ.
Jogendra Chandra Das ......Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...... Respondents
F. M. A. No. 318 of 1980
Decided on : May 10, 1989
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE - Disciplinary Proceedings - Irregularities - Non-Compliance with Rules - Violation of Natural Justice - Setting Aside of Orders - Reinstatement with Service Benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable, was charged with serious neglect of duty and found guilty by an enquiry officer. The Assistant Security Officer accepted the findings and issued a show-cause notice to the appellant. The Security Officer, after considering the appellant's reply, passed a final order removing him from service. The appellant's appeal to the Deputy Chief Security Officer was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which directed the authorities to reconsider his case.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by several irregularities, including non-compliance with the Railway Protection Force Rules, violation of natural justice, and failure to consider the appellant's defense case. The Court also noted that other RPF staff, including the appellant's co-worker, were treated leniently, while the appellant was arbitrarily picked for punishment.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were conducted in accordance with the Railway Protection Force Rules and the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the appellant was discriminated against in comparison to other RPF staff who were involved in the same incident? 3. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the orders of the disciplinary authorities and directing the authorities to reconsider the appellant's case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by several irregularities, including non-compliance with the Railway Protection Force Rules, violation of natural justice, and failure to consider the appellant's defense case. The Court found that the enquiry officer did not consider the appellant's written statement of defense or the exceptions taken by him in the written statement of defense. The Court also found that the Assistant Security Officer recorded an ultra vires finding by reaching a finding of connivance without following the procedure prescribed in the Rules. 2. The Court held that the appellant was discriminated against in comparison to other RPF staff who were involved in the same incident. The Court noted that other RPF staff, including the appellant's co-worker, were treated leniently, while the appellant was arbitrarily picked for punishment. 3. The Court held that the High Court was correct in setting aside the orders of the disciplinary authorities and directing the authorities to reconsider the appellant's case. The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were invalid and that the appellant was denied natural justice.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Court below, and directed the respondents to pay the appellant all the service benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been fastered with the orders impugned in the writ applications within a period of four months from the date of the communication of the order.
Majumder, J. : The appeal arising out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below on April 26, 1979 is at the instance of the writ petitioner. Before the determination of the issue involves in the appeal, it is appropriate for this Court to refer to the fact that on the prayer of Mr. Ajoy Kumar Bose, the learned Advocate for the respondents. The Court allowed the revisional Order dated 19. 12. 79 passed by the Chief Security Officer to be filed and treated as part of the record of the case.
2. The broad facts of the case are stated as follows :–
Shri Jogendra Chandra Das, (for short the appellant hereafter was served with the Memorandum dated May 16/19, 1973 together with statement of Charge and statement of imputation of misconduct. The said Memorandum was issued by the Asstt. Security Officer. The appellant was charged for serious neglect on duty that while on duty from 16 hours to 24 hours on June 17, 1972 along with Rakshak 1661 L. S. Lama in beat No. 29 outside Kharagpur Workshop he failed to prevent or detect removal of railway materials by a gang of criminals who removed railway materials from wagons which were drawn out from the Bhusi Gate for shunting operation at about 20/10 hours of the aforesaid date.
3. The appellant claims to be an illiterate constable. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the appellant being incapable of understanding English language through the help of his friend asked for copy of the statement of witnesses. The said prayer, was made on August 31, 1973, for the purpose of making necessary reply to the charge-sheet and for any other representation, the appellant took the help of Sri U. P. Upadhay, Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force. It is, claimed that Sri Upadhay was one of his defence helpers. Copies of statements as prayed for the appellant were not furnished to him, nor the appellant had any opportunity to know or to contradict the statements of witnesses who were examined behind his back. It appears that on July 20, 1973 the appellant was allowed to take come extracts from the relevant records. The appellant through Sri Upadhay submitted his explanation to the charges on July 10, 1973. The appellant denied the charges by contending inter alia, that the same "are false and frivolous". The enquiry into charges was commenced, continued and concluded. The appellant submitted his written statement of defence in which he inter alia, stated that :
1. The R. O. party member stated that he was not in good terms with the R. P. F. Staff.
2. He did not disclose the names of the originals to the Police for reasons best known to him.
3. PW-2 did not notice anybody excepting the R.P.F Staff though the shunting staff were present there. There is motive behind it.
4. The night in question was a dark one and heavily raining.
5. S. I. J. K. Ghosh was present at the shunting operation.
The Enquiry Officer submitted a finding to the Asstt. Secretary holding inter alia, the appellant guilty of the charge. The conclusionary paragraph of the enquiry report is quoted below :
"What he said in the written defence is all true. But on the other hand, the theft of iron materials is also true. The theft was possible due to his connivance with the criminals or to due to his gross neglect of duty. Connivance cannot be proved beyond doubt. Hence, stands the gross neglect of duty resulting in the theft. The stolen properties of 17.6.72 were recovered by PW-1 on 18.6.72 during raid and search. Hence, the charge stands proved and I hold the delinquent guilty of the charge."
"The case file is returnable herewith the relevant documents."
4. The Assistant Security Officer forwarded the proceedings to the Security Officer, Kharagpur, for awarding suitable punishment in view of the gravity of the offence as the appellant was appointed by a Senior Scale Officer. The Security Officer, Kharagpur, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and decided to impose the punishment of removal from service on the a
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
