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 conc