The court affirmed that a charge-sheet could be issued by a competent disciplinary authority even if it pertains to a major penalty, and that procedural issues did not undermine the disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.02.2001 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.01.2000 dismissing the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 11.10.1999 imposing the penalty of “removal from service” upon him with a direction to the respondents to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that Late Bhikha Ram Meena the Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (for short ”the delinquent employee”), while working as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short “the Rules of 1987”) vide memorandum dated 15.07.1998 containing three charges. After holding the enquiry, the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges No.1 and 2. A Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the delinquent employee by the respondents along with show-cause-notice dated 16.08.1999. After considering the material on record, the delinquent employee was inflicted with the penalty of “removal from service”. The appeal as also the revision preferred thereagainst by the delinquent employee were dismissed.

3. Assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the delinquent employee submitted that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority, i.e., by the Assistant Security Commissioner. Inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 152.1 of the Rules of 1987, she submits that it could have been issued either by the appointing authority or any authority otherwise empowered by the general or special order. She submits that the Assistant Security Commissioner was neither his appointing authority nor, was the authority otherwise empowered. She further submits that charge-sheet was not signed by the authority issuing it. Further, inviting attention of this Court towards the memorandum dated 15.07.1998 wherein, he was given 15 days time to file response to the charge-sheet, she submitted that vide order dated 16.07.1998, the disciplinary authority fixed the first date of the departmental enquiry as 27.07.1998, i.e., prior to expiry of the period of 15 days which has vitiated the entire enquiry proceeding. Lastly, referring to the statement of PW-2-Shri Aditya Nigam, she contends that he has categorically stated that the delinquent employee has informed him on 06.04.1998 that as he had picked up a quarrel with some outsiders, he was leaving for his village. She submits that in view thereof, it could not have been held that he was wilfully absent from duty. She, therefore, prays that the orders impugned be quashed and set aside and, in view of his death, he be treated to be continue in service from the date of his dismissal and the petitioners be granted all consequential benefits.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the charge-sheet was issued by the competent authority. He, in this regard, relies upon Rule 152.2 read with Schedule III of the Rules of 1987 which envisage that a disciplinary authority, competent to impose a minor punishment, may institute disciplinary proceeding for imposing any of the major punishments notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent to impose the latter punishment. He submits that since, the Assistant Security Commissioner was competent to impose the minor penalty upon the delinquent employee, he could have issued the subject charge-sheet. Denying the contention of the learned counsel for the delinquent employee, he submits that the charge-sheet