JUDGMENT :

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the charge sheet dated 21st June, 2018, the findings of the enquiry officer dated 9th/10th February, 2019, the order of punishment dated 23rd February, 2019, the show cause notices for enhancement of punishment dated 13th June, 2019 and 8th June, 2020 (mistakenly recorded as 2019 in the document), as also the order passed by the Railway Board dated 23rd June, 2021, in terms of the liberty afforded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24th September, 2021.

2. The petitioner was a constable of the Railway Protection Security Force (RPSF) and at the relevant point of time was posted at ‘A’ Coy, 4th Battalion, New Jalpaiguri. While being so posted at the 4th Battalion, New Jalpaiguri he was placed under suspension by an order dated 4th April, 2018 for allegedly commenting on social media through Facebook. It is the petitioner’s case that subsequently, the said order of suspension was revoked by an order dated 26th April, 2018 and he was reinstated in service. Following the aforesaid, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet. Simultaneously, with the issuance of the charge sheet, without waiting for the petitioner’s response, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an enquiry officer. The aforesaid appointment of the enquiry officer according to the petitioner indicates a closed mind and bias. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, an enquiry proceeding was conducted and finally the enquiry authority had forwarded the enquiry report (hereinafter referred to as the “first enquiry report”) to the Disciplinary Authority.

3. It is the petitioner’s contention that without affording the petitioner opportunity to respond to the said first enquiry report, the enquiry officer had once again started the enquiry de novo and had filed a fresh report. The said report dated 10th February, 2019 was subsequently served on the petitioner by letter dated 14th February, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “second enquiry report”). The petitioner duly responded to the said second enquiry report and had highlighted that the procedure adopted by the respondents to hold a de novo enquiry was not permissible in law. Records reveal that the Disciplinary Authority, however, by order dated 22nd February, 2019, taking note of the second enquiry report while holding the petitioner guilty of suppression of facts/information, purported to impose a punishment of stoppage of next annual increment for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect. The petitioner was thereafter, served with a show cause notice dated 13th June, 2019 issued by the DIG-cum- CSC/RPF Railway Board, whereunder it was observed that the charge leveled against the petitioner having been proved and the charge leveled against the petitioner being very serious and grave and the punishment having been found to be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority not commensurate with the gravity of the charge proved against the petitioner, the DIG-cum-CSC/RPFC, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 219.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) proposed to offer opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why higher punishment should not be imposed on the petitioner for passing such a comment on social media platform which ratifies and praises the act of murder of a superior officer on duty by his subordinate officer.

4. The petitioner submits that challenging the aforesaid show cause notice dated 13th June, 2019, a writ petition was filed before this Court which was registered as W.P. No. 14424 (W) of 2019. By an order dated 6th August, 2019, Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of a similarly situated person namely, Krishna Ram, the writ petitioner therein, registered as W.P. No. 14422 (W) of 2019 had stayed/kept the show cause notice dated 13th June, 2019 issued by the Railway Board in abeyance and had by extending the