IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
Mina Debi Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 16373 of 2015
Decided on : 10-04-2024.
Departmental Enquiry - Railway Protection Force - Railway Protection Force Rules 1987, Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act - The court considered the charges of discreditable conduct and serious neglect of duty against a constable of the Railway Protection Force. The court discussed the admissibility of evidence from a criminal trial in a departmental proceeding, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof required. The court found that the disciplinary authority did not make up its mind to hold the petitioner guilty and that there was no irregularity in the procedure followed in the enquiry and the disciplinary proceeding. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable of the Railway Protection Force, was charged with discreditable conduct and serious neglect of duty. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him based on an allegation of rape, and he was subsequently dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the enquiry proceeding, the findings of the enquiry officer, and the dismissal order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority did not make up its mind to hold the petitioner guilty and that there was no irregularity in the procedure followed in the enquiry and the disciplinary proceeding. The court also held that the evidence from a criminal trial could be considered in the departmental proceeding, and the burden of proof in a departmental proceeding is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of evidence from a criminal trial in a departmental proceeding, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no irregularity in the procedure followed in the enquiry and the disciplinary proceeding. The court also established that evidence from a criminal trial could be considered in the departmental proceeding, and the burden of proof in a departmental proceeding is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and found that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the enquiry proceeding, the findings of the enquiry officer dated 29th September, 2013, the order of dismissal dated 12th October, 2012, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 29th January, 2014 and the order passed by the revisional authority dated 21st November, 2014.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner was a constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) of Eastern Railways and at the material point of time was posted at C & T.E. Coy, Asansol. While being posted at the RPF post, Andal, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet dated 28th August, 2000 whereby, a charge of discreditable conduct was levelled against him on the basis of an allegation that while on duty the petitioner along with his colleague S.K. Vatsa alleged to have raped a girl aged about 20 years which had brought discredit to the reputation of the force and the same was also in violation of the Railway Service Conduct Rules.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, an enquiry proceeding was conducted which ultimately, culminated in an order of dismissal dated 31st January, 2007 issued by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF. Although, the petitioner had filed a statutory appeal, the same was, however, dismissed by an order dated 16th July, 2007.
4. Complaining of procedural irregularity, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WP No. 22160(W) of 2007. On contested hearing by a judgment and order dated 18th May, 2010, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties was pleased to dispose of the said petition by not only setting aside the enquiry report, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order passed by the appellate authority but by the self-same order had also granted liberty to the respondents to proceed de novo on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 18th August, 2000. It was further provided that in the event no steps are taken by the disciplinary authority within the period mentioned therein, it would be presumed that the respondents do not intend to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of charge-sheet.
5. Although, an intra Court appeal was preferred by the respondents challenging the aforesaid order, which was registered as FMA 1534 of 2011, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court without interfering with the other directions passed by the co-ordinate bench had only granted the respondents liberty to proceed de novo in relation to the charge-sheet dated 28th August, 2000 and to conclude the same within a period of 8 months therefrom. The other directions contained in the said order are not relevant for the present case.
6. Records reveal that the respondents had unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing a special leave petition which was registered as Special leave to appeal (civil) CC No. 12754 of 2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated 15th July, 2013 while dismissing the said petition had only extended the time by a further period of 3 months, for compliance of the order.
7. Admittedly, pursuant to the aforesaid a memorandum of charge dated 22nd July, 2013 was issued calling upon the petitioner to respond to the same. Particulars of the charges levelled against the petitioner would corroborate from annexure – 1 to the said memorandum. To morefully appreciate the same, the charges are extracted hereinbelow:
i) He along with his colleague Const./6136 S.K. Vatsa on duty at Down Home Signal, Andal to Fly. Over Bridge, Andal from 16.00 hrs to 24.00 hrs of 20.08.2000 with Arms and ammunition vide CC No. 613(8
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
M.V. Bijlani. v. Union of India & Ors.
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
The admissibility of evidence from a criminal trial in a departmental proceeding, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding.
The court emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and allowed the objection about the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer, leading to th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the substantial compliance with the procedural rules and the requirement for evidence to support the charges in a departmental enquiry.
The principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to a fair and impartial hearing, must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings against government employees.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.