IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Aayush Tomar, S/o. Ayyoor Taumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, Represented By The, Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.8143 Of 2022
Decided On : 30-03-2023
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 – Rules 132, 148, 153, 161 – Disciplinary Authority – Railway Protection Force – Learned counsel appearing for petitioner learned CGC appearing for respondents – Petitioner while serving as a Constable (GD), Railway Protection from service by impugned order respondent without holding any departmental enquiry or giving him any opportunity of being heard – Held, Court opinion that impugned orders are unsustainable in eye of law respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner within weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order – Respondents proceed accordance with law after giving petitioner an opportunity to show cause be open for authorities to place petitioner under suspension deemed necessary – writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Swati B. Baruah (TG), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. The writ petitioner, while serving as a Constable (GD), in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was removed from service by the impugned order dated 24-03-2020 passed by the respondent No. 4 without holding any departmental enquiry or giving him any opportunity of being heard. By the order dated 08-09-2020, the appellate authority had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and the revisional authority had also confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority by the order dated 09-12-2020. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are to the effect that pursuant to a selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) in the RPF. While discharging his duties at the Dibrugarh Railway Station premises, the petitioner, along with his colleague CT/ Arun Sharma and one Ashif Khan, were allegedly caught red handed while having possession of about 13 k.g.s of contraband goods (suspected ganza). As such, by the order dated 24-03-2020, the petitioner was removed from service. The grounds on which the petitioner was removed from service as well as the purported reasons for not holding a departmental enquiry have been indicated in the impugned order dated 24-03-2020. As such, the order dated 24-03-2020 is reproduced herein-below for ready reference:-
Office of the Divisional Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force
Tinsukia – 786125
| No. TP/G-5 Sec/GB/Susp./2020/99 | TSK, the 24th March, 2020 |
On 23-03-2020 CT/Arun Sharma & CT/Aayush Taumar of RPF/Post/Dibrugarh were on shift duty from 14:00 Hrs. to 22:00 Hrs. at DBRG Railway Station Premises i.e. at main entrance gate and sickline respectively but both were marked absent from duty at around 17:45 Hrs. of 23/03/2020 for deserting their duty beats. Later on at around 18:30 Hrs. Information was received that CT/Arun Sharma and CT/ Aayush Taumar along with one outsider Ashif Khan, M/22 years, son of Istiyaque Khan of Lahorpatti Gali No. 3, Dibrugarh (Assam), were detained by I/C Local Police, Gabharupathar Police Outpost from the local area outside of DBRG Yard. On receipt of the information. IPF/DBRG along with officers and Staff immediately attended the site and found DSP/ HQrs/ Dibrugarh Shri Nitumani Das, I/C Gabharupathar Police Outpost with force had detained both the RPF Staff & the outsider with recovery of about 13 Kgs., contraband goods (suspected to the Ganja) from their possession. While they tried to disposed of the said contraband goods. Further DSP/HQrs/DBRG intimated that the said recovered contraband has been seized from the possession of both the RPF staff & outsiders and have been taken into custody. Subsequently, the police took them to Gabharupathar Police Outpost at around 19:00 Hrs. for further course of action.
In this connection, Sadar Thana, Dibrugarh registered a case vide No. 571/2020 dated 23/03/2020 U/s 20(11)(C) & 29 NDPS Act, and both the RPSF staff are now under police custody.
ASC/TSK was nominated to conduct fact finding enquiry into the case ASC/TSK conducted discreet enquiry into the above incident and submitted his fact finding enquiry report vide No. TP/C-5/CB/2020 dated 24/03/2020 on the unlawful possession of contraband goods (suspected to be ganja) are arrest of both RPF staff CT/ Arun Sharma & CT/Aayush Taumar of DBRG post along with one outsider near outside of DBRG station year on 23-03-2020 at around 18:00 hours. During the course of enquiry ASC/TSK has examined 03 officers of DBRG post and recorded their statements, examined documents related to the incident and recommended for stringent action against CT/Arun Sharma and CT/Aayush Taumar.
A. List of Witnesses:-
1. S
UOI & Ors. Vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav reported in (2022) 1 SCC 389
Deepali Phukan Vs. Dibrugarh University & Ors. reported in 2019 (4) GauLT 435
UOI Vs. Tulsiram Patel & Ors. reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398
Reena Rani Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 215
Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 362
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear reasons and objective criteria when dispensing with a departmental enquiry under Rule 161(ii) of the Railway Protection F....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear reasons and objective criteria for dispensing with the ordinary procedure for holding an enquiry, as well as the need for....
High court cannot sit in appeal and examine the reasons assigned by the authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
Proportionality of punishment and adherence to prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents followed the provisions of the CRPF Act and Rules in conducting the inquiry and imposing the punishment on the petitioner.
The court upheld the removal of a constable for repeated indiscipline, affirming the adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed disciplinary procedures and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties for misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.