Point of Law: since Regulation 7(2) does not contain any provision for giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer to represent before disciplinary authority who reverses the findings which were in favour of the delinquent employee, the rules of natural justice are not applicable

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Nath, J.

1. The Court is well aware and conscious of the basic cardinal tenets regarding its scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which have been reiterated in a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Apex Court. However, the case at hand, before the Court is such, that has pricked the conscience of the court and has left the Court terribly perturbed and the factual matrix is such that warrants interference of the Court in order to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.

2. The present petition deserves to be allowed on any of the four major grounds raised, viz, (i) initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by an officer not competent under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, (ii) the proceedings being malafide, (iii) the proceedings being vitiated on account of non-appointment of a Presenting Officer and (iv) the orders of all the Authorities suffer from the vice of being not in consonance with the requirements laid down in the 1987 Rules.

3. However, a deeper understanding of the facts and evidence, has led the Court to draw a conclusion regarding the abominable conduct of the proceedings and the shocking and perverse orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.

4. The crux of the entire matter rests upon the shaky foundations laid by a feeble and lame complaint, whereby it was alleged that after snatching Rs. 2,200/- from the Complainant, Rs. 2,000/- were returned to him and for the remaining Rs. 200/-, a receipt for fine under the Tobacco Act was issued. From the sequence of events, as they transpired, it is quite evident that there was neither any loss to complainant nor any loss to the Railway Protection Force. As a matter of fact, two officers, i.e. One Inspector and one Assistant Security Commissioner conducted preliminary inquiries against the petitioner and have given their reports to drop the proceedings against the petitioner and rather to take appropriate action against Respondent No. 5, i.e. Constable Satyavir Krishniya, who had identified himself as a previous acquaintee of the Complainant.

5. A bare appreciation of the facts of the present case would reveal that the officers of the Railway Protection Force were sent on a wild-goose chase across the country for the tracing the complainant (from different districts in Uttar Pradesh to Gujarat) by Respondent No. 5, i.e. Satyavir Krishniya and further getting disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, for settling his own scores of personal vendetta against the Petitioner. It is quite interesting to see that the officers of the Railway Protection Force, quite readily and credulously played in the hands of the scheme hatched by Respondent No. 5, i.e. Satyavir Krishniya.

6. The Respondent No. 5 appears to be the architect behind the entire charade and it is further the Court’s conclusion, that the said Respondent was not even interested in the inquiries nor was he pursuing them. It is appalling to see the amount of time and money spent in conducting repeated inquiries, departmental and preliminary, where the complainant had been taking contradictory stands time and again and that too, for an incident, the facts of which were suitably refashioned by the Respondent No. 5 to suit his own vested interests. We have dealt with in detail, in the subsequent paragraphs, from the stage of the incident till the completion of the inquiry, passing of the punishment order, the subsequent dismissal of the statutory appeal and the revision. The present facts reflect such disconcerting circumstances, that the Court would be abdicating and relegating its judicial duty if it did not observe that the petitioner is the real victim and the complaint was nothing but a design based on personal vengeance concocted by the Respondent no. 5.

7. The present writ petition has been fi