IMPORTANT POINT
The applicability of Fundamental Rules and the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 to disciplinary proceedings, and the treatment of suspension period as suspension for all purposes.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging not only the order of suspension dated 26th September, 2007 but the disciplinary proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 22nd October, 2007, the findings of the enquiry officer dated 27th November, 2008, the second show-cause notice dated 4th December, 2008, the order of punishment dated 16th December, 2008 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 20th April, 2009. The petitioner is a constable of the Railway Protection Force (in short, “RPF”) of Eastern Railways and at the time of institution of the instant writ petition was posted at RPF, Jamalpur Yard Post under Malda Division. In course of employment and while working at CIB Asansol, as a Constable, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect from 26th September, 2007 on the ground of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding. He was further directed to give his attendance at Liluah Revenue Line. Following the aforesaid order of suspension, a charge-sheet dated 22nd October, 2007 was issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner wherein it has been, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner had absented himself from duty without any intimation. The particulars of charge against the petitioner as would corroborate from the statement of charges is extracted hereinbelow:

“Statement of Charges

Sri Hira Lal Singh, C/3814/CIB/ASN is charged for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty in that:

1. On 15.09.07, he left HQ/ASN and visited Gayman local area, Andal alone on his own accord and without taking permission/intimation from his controlling officer i.e. IPF/CIB/ASN or any other officer of CIB/ASN and he has absented himself from his duty without any intimation.

2. Sri Hira Lal Singh, C/3814/CIB/ASN directly informed CSC/KKK over phone about false recovery of some coal dust at Gayman area without informing Sr. DSC/ASN or IPF/CIB/ASN and hereby violated/encroached the hierarchy of a discipline force like RPF.

3. Sri Hira Lal Singh, C/3814/CIB/ASN gave mis-declaration of his actual identity before the Police Officer by mentioning his fake chest number.

4. Sri Hira Lal Singh, C/3814/CIB/ASN, neither received any source information regarding shifting of coal dust from DSEY/Andal to the Kanta of one Bapi Modi, nor he recovered any coal dust as was clarified from the report of SI/Ramjee Singh submitted to Sr. DSC/ASN vide no. RPF/UDL(P)/CON/2007/1938 dt. 16.09.07 rather it was his lame excuse to save his responsibility to avoid registration of any case by local Police Station of Waria Investigation Centre. He falsely took the plea to avoid his responsibility.

5. While Sri Hira Lal Singh, C/3814/CIB/ASN was detained by Police at Waria Investigation Centre, he voluntarily accepted in writing i.e. black and white that he had gone to the Kanta of Bapi Modi to collect illegal money as established by the diary entry no. 849 dt. 15.09.07 of RPF(Proper) Post, Andal that has tarnished the image of a disciplined force like RPR. Thus he was violated sub rule (i), (ii), (vi), (vii), (ix) of rule 147 of RPF rules 1987.”

2. The same was supported by a statement of allegations, list of documents and a list of witnesses, as well. The disciplinary proceeding was conducted based on the aforesaid charge-sheet and ultimately, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Consequent to the aforesaid, by a communication in writing dated 4th December, 2008, Assistant Security Commissioner as the disciplinary authority of the petitioner forwarded the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner had since, responded to the said enquiry report whereupon a final order dated 16th December, 2008 was passed holding the petitioner guilty thereby, imposing a penalty of withholding the next increment due for two years with cumulative effect and his suspension period was to be treated as suspension for all purpose. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal o