The fundamental rights of members of the Armed Forces of the Union can be restricted or abrogated by the Parliament or its nominee, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 33 of the Constitution.

      1. These 22 writ petitions raise almost common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of these writ petitions are : that in these writ petitions, the petitioners have mostly challenged the charge-sheets that have been served on them for their different acts of misconduct and in most of these writ petitions, the enquiries are pending. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1991, V.K. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, the petitioner has been reverted to the rank of Sub Inspector for a period of two years vide order Annexure A/6. In D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 6599 of 1991, S.C. Kataria v. Union of India and others, and 3674 of 1992, Raj Singh v. Union of India and others, the petitioners have been punished with stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1991, Om Prakash v. Union of India and others, the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner along with the punishment order. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4984 of 1992, Sheo Pratap Tiwari v. Union of India and others, initially an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from service but later on, when he filed a writ petition, he has been reinstated and now, a fresh chargesheet has been served on him. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5965 of 1993, P.K. Goyal v. Union of India and others, the enquiry was completed and a notice to show-cause as to why proposed punishment should not be awarded to him has been issued. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge-sheets served on them and in the cases, in which, punishment orders have been passed or notice to show cause as to why proposed punishment should not be awarded, has been issued, the petitioners have prayed that they be quashed.

3. In D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3574 of 1991 and 2835 of 1992, it has been alleged that the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules') have not been approved by both the Houses of the Parliament. Although this contention has been raised in these writ petitions, but it has not been canvassed before us during the course of arguments. Probably, this argument was raised on the basis of certain notings or proceedings of the Parliament but now, it is certain that the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 have attained finality.The entire rule 153 of the Rules has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2835 of 1992, 4236 of 1992 and 6737 of 1992. The validity of Rule 153.3 of the Rules has not been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4984 of 1992, Sheo Pratap Tiwari v. Union of India and others. In that case, that the petitioner has contended is that the charge-sheet is violative of rule 153.3 of the Rules because, on similar charges, somebody has been visited with the minor punishment whereas he has been issued a charge- sheet for major punishment. He has only challenged the vires of rule 153.8 of the Rules. The vires of rule 153.8 of the Rules has also been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 5155 of 1990, 2399 of 1991, 3594 of 1991, 4218 of 1991, 6599 of 1991, 3674 of 1992, 3675 of 1992, 4287 of 1992, 4288 of 1992, 4595 of 1991, 4665 of 1992, 4984 of 1992, 5750 of 1992, 6475 of 1992, 173 of 1993, 3136 of 1993, and 5965 of 1993. The validity of rule 153.11 has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1991 and the validity of Rule 153.12 has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 4287 of 1992 and 4288 of 1992 on the ground that they suffer from excessive delegation. The validity of rule 153.15 has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3594 of 1991 and the validity of Rule 154.1 has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3594 of 1991, 6599 of 1991, 3674 of 1992, 45