The doctrine of constructive res-judicata applies when a party fails to challenge certain findings in a previous petition, and the court cannot interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision if it follows the necessary steps before enhancing the punishment.

JUDGMENT

Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. - This is a writ petition pertaining the decision of the Revising Authority dated 15th March, 2011 whereby the Revising Authority in terms of Rule 219.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Rules of 1987') enhanced the punishment against the petitioner to the extent of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefit with immediate effect.

2. The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force who was charge-sheeted vide order dated 3rd December, 2009. The allegation as contained in the charge-sheet is reproduced below:

'Charge:-

Sri T.K. Pandey, SIPF of RPF/Post/ Ranchi is charged for discreditable conduct in that while girls students of Aligarh Muslim University were travelling by a Special train from Aligarh, on 1.11.2009 at about 18.00 hrs, on arrival of the train at Bokaro Railway station he (SI Sri Pandey) along with others tried to board in the same coach unauthorisedly also abused and threatened them on refusal by Fahad Allam, Nadia Allam and Sabnam Ara.

This amounts to discreditable conduct in a manner prejudicial to discipline and bringing discredit to the reputation of the force and unbecoming of a Railway servant in the discipline force of the Union.

Thus such act on the part of Sri T.K. Pandey SIPF tantamount to gross indiscipline act and discreditable conduct which renders him violation of rule 146.1.146.4 of RPF rules 1987 and para-3 (iii) of Railway Service Conduct rules 1966.'

3. fter issuance of such charge-sheet departmental enquiry was commenced by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report dated 29th May, 2010 was prepared which went against the petitioner and it was found by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and the allegations.

4. Based on such enquiry report dated 29th May, 2010 Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi issued order of punishment whereby the petitioner was imposed punishment to the extent of reduction in rank from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Sub-Inspector for a period of one month.

5. Petitioner as it appears from the submission made on behalf of the parties to this writ petition as well as from the records had accepted such order of punishment imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority and did not make any demur against the findings of the Enquiry officer as contained in enquiry report dated 29th May, 2010 as well as the decision to impose punishment as contained in the order of punishment dated 19th July, 2010.

6. Subsequently, the Revising Authority took up the issue on its own motion relating to imposition of punishment upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 219.4 of the said Rules of 1987 and issued show cause notice dated 11th November, 2010 to the petitioner asking him to explain why the punishment should not be enhanced in connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him.

7. Such show cause notice of the Revising Authority is at pages 72 to 73 of the writ petition.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent authorities preferred the writ petition being WPA 23999 of 2010 challenging the said show cause notice dated 11th November, 2010 and the said writ petition stood dismissed by a coordiante Bench vide order dated 2nd February, 2011. The relevant part of the observation of the coordinate Bench made in the order dated 2nd February, 2011 runs infra:

'Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also considering the provisions of Rule 219.4, this Court is of the view that there is no irregularity at all in the Order passed by the IG-cum- Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., who passed the Order on 11.11.2010. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed'.

9. After dismissal of the first writ petition petitioner responded to the showcause notice dated 11th November, 2010 vide letter dated 13th February, 2011 and in consideration of such