The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court directions and ensuring fairness in the disciplinary proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 21st November, 2013 and the charge sheet dated 3rd December, 2013.

2. The petitioner is the head constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and at the material point of time was posted at Reserve Coy, Liluah under Howrah-I Division. While he was posted at RPF Post, Belur Scrap Yard he was placed under suspension by order dated 6th July, 2011 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. Subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked by the competent authority by order dated 8th May, 2012. Following the aforesaid, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a charge sheet dated 28th December, 2011 issued by the Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner.

3. Immediately, upon such charge sheet being issued, the petitioner had made a detailed representation dated 25th January, 2012 denying all material allegations. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s representation having not been found satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since the status of the enquiry officer was far below the rank of the two principal witnesses named in the charge sheet, the petitioner by a further representation dated 16th February, 2012 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority, had requested appointment of any other official as the enquiry officer who is higher in rank than the aforesaid two principal prosecution witnesses, inasmuch as according to the petitioner, the enquiry officer who was lower in rank than the principal prosecution witness would not be in a position to hold a fair and impartial enquiry and there would be every likelihood of the said enquiry being influenced by the decision of the fact finding authority who were higher in rank and status than the enquiry officer.

4. Since, the petitioner’s representation was not adhered to, the petitioner was compelled to move a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP no. 6148 (W) of 2012. By order dated 4th April, 2012, a Coordinate Bench of this Court on being prima facie satisfied with the case as made out had granted liberty to the respondents to appoint an enquiry officer who shall be superior in rank to both the aforesaid witnesses. It was further made clear that till such appointment is made, no further proceeding shall be conducted on the basis of the memorandum of charges out of which the writ petition arises and upon such appointment being made, it shall be open to the respondent authorities to continue with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the same memorandum of charges. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, the said writ petition was disposed of.

5. Although, the respondents had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 5th March, 2013, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court while refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal and the connected applications.

6. Records, however, reveal that by an office order dated 7th October, 2013, the aforesaid charge sheet was cancelled by citing procedural lapses. Following such cancellation, a show cause notice dated 28th October, 2013 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary proceeding shall not be initiated against the petitioner. Although, the petitioner had duly responded to the said show cause notice and had questioned the authority of the respondents to initiate further proceeding against the petitioner after having withdrawn the previous charge sheet, by order dated 21st November, 2013, the respondents decided to issue a fresh charge sheet and accordingly on 3rd December, 2013, a memorandum of charge was issued.

7. Challenging the a