Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Jitendra Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A No. 22065 of 2022
Decided on : 26-02-2024
Res Judicata - Disciplinary Enquiry - R.P.F Rules, 1987, Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 - 146.1, 146.4, 3(1)(i), (iii), (vi), (xviii), 21(2), Rule 13 - The court found that the present writ petition is barred by constructive res judicata as the issue involved in the present case has already been dealt with and decided earlier by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The court also found that the entire disciplinary proceeding suffers from arbitrariness, unfairness, and biasness and the alleged guilt of the writ petitioner has not been proved by producing sufficient evidence. The impugned order of the appellate authority dated 17.08.2022, as well as the entire disciplinary proceeding, is hereby set aside. The writ petitioner shall immediately be reinstated in service and given notional service benefits for the period of his absence.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a constable of Railway Protection Force of Metro Railways, Kolkata, was found guilty of solemnizing a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of 'removal from service' on the writ petitioner, which was upheld by the appellate authority. The writ petitioner challenged the appellate authority's order in the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present writ petition is barred by constructive res judicata as the issue involved in the present case has already been dealt with and decided earlier by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The court also found that the entire disciplinary proceeding suffers from arbitrariness, unfairness, and biasness and the alleged guilt of the writ petitioner has not been proved by producing sufficient evidence. The impugned order of the appellate authority dated 17.08.2022, as well as the entire disciplinary proceeding, is hereby set aside. The writ petitioner shall immediately be reinstated in service and given notional service benefits for the period of his absence.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the maintainability of the writ petition, the legality and propriety of the order of the appellate authority dated 17.08.2022, and the order of the disciplinary authority dated 18.04.2022.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present writ petition is barred by constructive res judicata as the issue involved in the present case has already been dealt with and decided earlier by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The court also found that the entire disciplinary proceeding suffers from arbitrariness, unfairness, and biasness and the alleged guilt of the writ petitioner has not been proved by producing sufficient evidence. The impugned order of the appellate authority dated 17.08.2022, as well as the entire disciplinary proceeding, is hereby set aside.
Final Decision: The writ petition being WPA 22065 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of. The impugned order of the appellate authority dated 17.08.2022, as well as the entire disciplinary proceeding, is hereby set aside. The writ petitioner shall immediately be reinstated in service and given notional service benefits for the period of his absence.
JUDGMENT :
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
1. An order of the appellate authority, i.e, Deputy Inspector General of Police cum Chief Security Commissioner, Metro Railways Kolkata/respondent no. 4, dated 17.08.2022, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. By dint of the said impugned order dated 17.08.2022, the appellate authority has upheld the finding of guilt of the present writ petitioner of the charges leveled against him and also the punishment awarded to him of ‘removal from service’ vide order dated 18.04.2022.
3. The writ petitioner is aggrieved with the said order of the appellate authority and has moved the instant writ petition on the grounds inter alia that the appellate authority could not apply judicious mind to the facts emerged during disciplinary enquiry, that the appellate authority did not consider that the charges leveled against the writ petitioner were not proved in the disciplinary enquiry, that the appellate authority erroneously applied the provisions of the R.P.F Rules, 1987, as well as Railways Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, in case of the writ petitioner and thus its finding in the impugned order to uphold the punishment of ‘removal from service’ of the writ petitioner is neither justified nor legal. The writ petitioner is aggrieved that the appellate authority has not applied its judicious mind to the legality and propriety of the disciplinary proceeding undertaken against the writ petitioner, which he says, is neither legal nor in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thus, writ petitioner has pleaded the ground that the appellate authority’s order dated 17.08.2022 is bereft of sound reasons, arbitrary and is only the replica of what the disciplinary authority has found upon certain erroneous considerations, against the present writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has pleaded the grounds that the appellate authority has not applied its independent mind to the facts of the case as well as the applicable laws and has come to an illegal finding thereof. The writ petitioner has sought for setting aside of the impugned order of the appellate authority/respondent no. 4 dated 17.08.2022.
4. The factual background of this case is necessary for disposal of the case which may be narrated in a nut-shell in the manner as follows:-
5. The writ petitioner joined at Metro Railways, Kolkata, in the year 2014, in the post of a ‘Constable’ of Railway Protection Force of Metro Railways, Kolkata.
Complaints dated 14.10.2020 and 10.11.2020 were filed with the Railway Authorities by one Smt. Poosha Devi, who claimed to be the wife of the writ petitioner. The crux of allegations against the writ petitioner was that the writ petitioner during subsistence of his marriage with Smt. Poosha Devi/complainant, solemnized the second marriage with one Archana Jadav of village and post office-Chillar, Dist-Gazipur, U.P at 25.06.2020. Since contracting a second marriage by an employee during subsistence of the first marriage is a misconduct under the Rules, under which the service of the writ petitioner was governed, i.e, R.P.F Rules, 1987 and Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner.
One Mr. J. P. Singh IPF/SCNL/M.Rly/Kolkata, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The writ petitioner submitted his written reply to the show cause issued to him by the said Enquiry Officer on 25.11.2020. The preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was submitted thereof on 18.01.2021 before the Senior Security Commissioner/R.P.F/Metro Railways/Kolkata/respondent no. 4.
The Enquiry Officer submitted the said report regarding finding of guilt of the present petitioner of solemnization of second marriage with Archana Yadav, during subsistence of his first marriage with Smt. Poosha Devi.
The writ petitioner was again invited to submit his reply as against the said preliminary enquiry report dated 05.03.2021, to which he replied vide his letter dated 30.04.2021.
Later on, on 30.04.2021 a c
The issue of constructive res judicata and the requirement of proving guilt in a disciplinary proceeding.
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....
Revisional authority cannot annul completed departmental enquiry to start fresh major penalty proceedings; limited to enhancement via show cause. Dismissal for second marriage shockingly disproportio....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to natural justice principles; findings based on evidence are upheld unless proven perverse.
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to ensuring due process was followed, not to reassess the proportionality of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
