Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.
Jyotish Chandra Karmakar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3014 of 2011
Decided On : 11-03-2019
Tapan Chakraborti, Bharati Ghosh, Partha Sarathi Bose, Anirban Dutta, Advocates.
The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts in disciplinary proceedings, and the technical rules of evidence do not apply.
Headnote:
RPF - Disciplinary Proceeding - RPF Act 1957, RPF Rules 1987 - The court discussed the RPF Act 1957 and RPF Rules 1987 in the context of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The court emphasized that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the technical rules of evidence do not apply to disciplinary proceedings. The court also highlighted that findings of fact in a departmental enquiry can only be interfered with if they are based on no evidence or are clearly perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable of Railway Protection Force, was placed under suspension and faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly collecting money from passengers and assaulting them while on duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ application, holding that it was premature and lacked cause of action. The court emphasized that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the technical rules of evidence do not apply to disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: Prematurity of the writ application, jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ application was premature and lacked cause of action. It emphasized that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the technical rules of evidence do not apply to disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application and vacated the interim order, allowing the respondent authority to give effect to all actions taken during the proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner was a Head Constable of Railway Protection Force, (RPF in short) and now working as Assistant Sub- Inspector, RPF in Malda Division.
2. In the year 2010 when the petitioner was a Constable under RPF, he was placed under suspension and was directed by the suspension order dated 25.08.2010 to present himself daily for attendance during the suspension period. On 11.09.2010 an explanation was called for from the petitioner directing him to submit his explanation within five days from the date of receipt of letter for explanation.
3. The charge against the petitioner was of collecting money while on duty from the persons carrying un-booked luggage inside the train compartment on 24.08.2010 in train No. 611 UP (MLDT-NJP Passenger) which was detained at Malda in platform No. 5. It was also alleged that on that day some of the passengers were assaulted by on duty RPF staff.
4. On 16.09.2010 the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegation against him. On 01.10.2012 he prayed for revocation of the suspension order. Considering his prayer order of suspension was revoked on 18.10.2010. But the disciplinary proceeding continued.
5. All the above actions were taken by the RPF authority following RPF Act 1957 and RPF Rules 1987.
6. On 18.09.2010 charge sheet was issued against the petitioner. From the affidavit-in-opposition used by the respondent it is found that preliminary enquiry was conducted by Inspector/ RPF, Malda and the report was submitted wherein the involevement of the petitioner in respect of the allegations against him was not ruled out.
7. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceeding and filed his written defence on 16.12.2010 which has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure P-5.
8. In his written defence as well as in the writ application in paragraphs 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 and 22 the petitioner has stated that no charges against him of collecting money etc. was proved by any of the witnesses.
9. The Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry, wherein the petitioner participated, held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges brought against him.
10. The report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted on 17.12.2010.
11. The charge sheet that was issued to the petitioner was a major penalty charge sheet (No. MLD/CS/153/09/2010 dated 18.09.2010) where under the Enquiry Officer was engaged.
12. After receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority decided to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of "REMOVAL FROM SERVICE" and with the above decision, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, copies of the proceeding were supplied to the petitioner intimating him that if he wanted to file another representation/ submission that was to be done in writing within ten days.
13. It is found from the writ application and the documents annexed to the writ application that at that stage of this proceeding, the petitioner filed this writ application praying for mandamus commanding the respondent authority to forbear from giving effect or further effect on proceeding of the departmental enquiry indicated by the suspension order dated 25.08.2010, memorandum of charge sheet dated 18.06.2010, show-cause notice dated 07.02.2011 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and prayed for other writs with connected prayers like not proceeding with the disciplinary proceeding etc. Which is found from the prayers made in the writ application.
14. On 21.02.2011 when the matter was moved before this Court an interim order to the effect that "all actions taken shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition and if any final order is passed in the mean time, it will not be given effect to without obtaining leave of the Court", was passed.
15. Being protected by this interim order the petitioner has been working as a RPF Personnel; it has been intimated to this Court that the petitioner is presently working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of RPF working in Malda Division.
16. In th
