Point of Law: While criminal case is registered under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 which involves theft of Railway property, disciplinary proceeding is upon charges of gross negligence of duty, gross discreditable conduct and corrupt or improper practice in failure to prevent a theft of rice bags from Railway Wagons.

JUDGMENT :

The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by filing these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners have questioned the action of the respondent authorities initially a departmental enquiry under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Since, the issue is identical in all the three writ petitions, the same are taken up together for disposal by this common Judgment & Order.

2. Before deliberating on the issue raised, it would be convenient if the facts of the three cases are stated in brief.

3. The petitioner in WP(C)/4436/2019 is one Golap Sharma, who is working as a Head Constable, Railway Protection Force (hereinafter called, RPF) and posted at Lumding. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the year, 1997 and during his service tenure he has received a number of awards. Likewise, the petitioners in WP(C)/4453/2019, Shri Ajit Singh and in WP(C)/4454/2019, Shri Thokchom Madan Singh are also working as Constables in the RPF and posted at Lumding.

4. It is the common case of the petitioners that on 12.04.2019, an Officer of the RPF had lodged a complaint alleging that on the said date, he along with three other personnel had reached the Patharkhula Station at 01:30 Hrs. and on suspicion had detained one four wheeler and two motorcycles in which, one motorcycle of two persons fled away from the spot. However, they were able to apprehend the driver of the four wheeler and the remaining two wheeler which had fallen on the ground. It has been alleged that after such apprehension they could find that the door of the particular wagon was found in open condition and some rice bags were lying near the said wagons and some bags were found loaded in the four wheeler. The matter was immediately informed to the higher authorities whereafter a search was conducted and interrogation was made in which the apprehended persons could not give any satisfactory reply they also identified Shri Golap Sharma, Head Constable and also named 7 (seven) other associates. It was also revealed that on duty RPF Staffs were present in the spot and had opened the doors of the concerned wagons. After completion of all other formalities, the case was registered as RFP/POST/LMG Case No. 01(04)/2019 under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid accusation, all the three petitioners were placed under suspension in exercise of powers under Section 9 (1) (i) of the RPF Act, 1957 read with Rule 133 of the RPF Rules, 1987 w.e.f. 12.04.2019. Simultaneously, all the petitioners were arrested and were subsequently enlarged on bail by orders passed by this Court. However, it is the case of the petitioners that investigation was in progress and charge sheet yet to be filed. It is the case of the petitioners that at that juncture, they have been served with a memorandum of show cause dated 17.06.2019 proposing to hold the enquiry under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules, 1987 and the enquiry officer was also appointed.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a hasty manner with a pre-conceived mind to dismiss the petitioners from their services. It is the case of the petitioners that the charges in the departmental proceedings are vague, inconsistent and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.

7. The projected case of the petitioners is that the allegations in the departmental enquiry is identical and arising out of the same incident wherein the witnesses are common and if the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioners would suffer immense prejudice in the criminal case inasmuch as he will have to disclose his defence at the time of adducing evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses. The petitioners have accordingly prayed for quashing of the impugned memorandum of charges dated 17.06.2019.

8. This Court while issuing notice in all the three c