The court emphasized that in departmental enquiry proceedings, strict rules of evidence do not apply, and the findings of fact are not subject to re-appreciation by the court unless there is mala fide or perversity. The court also highlighted the principle of proportionality of punishment in disciplinary cases.

Navin Chawla, J.

The petitioner, in the above petition, challenges before us the order dated 29.01.1998 passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred as “RPF” in short), New Delhi removing him from the service with immediate effect. The petitioner further challenges the order dated 20.07.1998 passed by the Deputy CSC, RPF, Northern Railway, New Delhi dismissing his appeal against the above order.

2. Before we deal with the merits of the case, it is essential for us to give a brief background as to how this case has come before us.

3. The petitioner had challenged the above orders by way of a Civil Suit, being Suit No.900/2006/1999 filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi praying for declaration that the above impugned orders be declared null and void ab initio and illegal and also for a direction to reinstate him in service.

4. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.

5. Union of India and the Director General, RPF challenged the above judgment before the Court of District Judge, Delhi by way of RCA No.25/2009. Learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 04.07.2009 allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.

6. Aggrieved of the above order passed in appeal, the petitioner filed Regular Second Appeal, being RSA No.139/2009 before this Court. On 19.12.2016, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ishwar Singh, RSA No.26/2016, this Court was of the view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the petitioner and the only remedy available to the petitioner was by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, taking into account that the litigation was pending for more than 17 years and the objection to the maintainability of the suit was taken only at the stage of the Second Appeal, this Court directed that the Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioner be treated as writ petition and be decided accordingly. The Regular Second Appeal was thereafter numbered as WP (C) 127/2017 and this is how the present writ petition comes up before us for adjudication.

7. The petitioner was working as a Constable in RPF and was last posted at RPF Headquarter, New Delhi. He was served with a chargesheet bearing No.9.RPF/DAR/153/2/97 dated 01.03.1997, leveling the following charges against him:

“(i) Constable Mohender Singh s/o Sh.Bhim Singh of R.P.F. Post New Delhi is hereby charged for the serious misconduct, gross negligence and dereliction of duty in that:

(a) On 04.02.1997 during the course of duty from 8/- to 16/- hrs. shift in goodsyard, NGL, he failed to prevent & detect the theft of Rly. Property from SLR-10436/A-1 compartment of Train No.2401 Sharamjivi Express stabled in his duty beat theft was committed by the criminals during his duty hours.

(b) He failed to make over proper charge of his duty beat to Naik Jai Singh and Const. Subey Singh.

(c) He tried to conceal the crime which was committed from above SLR as he did not make any theft report and also burnt the Bardana which was recovered near the surrounding area in presence of Naik Jai Singh and Const. Subey Singh.”

8. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was posted at duty in Goods Yard, NSL Car Shed, New Delhi from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift on 04.02.1997. He was relieved by Naik Jai Singh and Ct. Subey Singh. Rake of train no.2401 Sharamjivi Express was stabled in his duty beat. On the same day, at around 8 p.m. two persons, namely Mohd. Yusuf and Devender Kumar @ Lala were arrested by the police at Chandni Chowk and 5 packets cardboard cartons, one bag (katta) containing 180 video cassettes and one bag containing engine parts were recovered from them. The bundle bore railway mark 974724/P-1 Ex.PNBE to NDLS. Both were arrested under Section 103 of