The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that failure to do so can lead to quashing of punitive actions.

JUDGMENT :

S. N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

PRAYER

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order of removal from service dated 25.11.2020 as well the impugned order dated 20.01.2022, passed by the Appellate Authority and the impugned order dated 11.05.2023, passed by the Revisional Authority. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release salary, dues, increments and payments right from the period of suspension dated 13.01.2020 between the period of removal from service dated 25.11.2020 till reinstatement in service.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. According to the petitioner, he was holding the post of Inspector, Railway Protection Force. While posted as Inspector, Railway Protection Force, South Eastern Railway, Jharsugda, Chakradharpur Division, South Eastern Railway, the petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 13.01.2020, issued by the respondent no. 6 and was attached to Divisional Security Control, Chakradharpur. The Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 7) had associated himself in conducting fact finding enquiry against the petitioner prior to issuance of Memorandum of Charge in examining the Prosecution Witness nos. 4, 7, 9, 17 and 18. These witnesses were educated and guided by the respondent no. 7 to depose statements before Sanjay Bhagat, the Assistant Security Commissioner, who was further appointed for conducting fact finding enquiry. It is case of the petitioner that act of the respondent no. 7 of proctoring the witnesses shows that he had associated himself in the fact finding enquiry and had also acted as a Disciplinary authority, which is violation to Circular issued by the Railway Board No. E/D(A) 63 RG-16, Dated 23.12.1968.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 7 served a Memorandum of Charge proposing to hold enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules, 1987 appointing Enquiry Officer to the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner fixing schedule of enquiry without affording opportunity to submit reply against the charges and allegations. A Press conference was held disclosing the preconceived mind of the disciplinary authority. Two of the Prime Prosecution witnesses were of the same rank as that of Kamal Singh i.e. Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, Tatanagar, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Kamal Singh was allowed to continue in the position despite the representation by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer may give a biased opinion being influenced by equivalently ranked officers as witnesses.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that during the period of suspension, he was directed by the respondent no. 6 to furnish daily attendance and further not to leave the headquarters without permission in adherence to Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, 1987. However, Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, 1987 has been declared ultravires by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. This fact was duly intimated to the respondents through representations but no heed was paid to the same. Petitioner was directed to put his attendance thrice in a day. The respondent no. 7 did not release the subsistence allowances on the pretext of failure to furnish daily attendance during the suspension period starting from 01.10.2020 till the date of removal. The non-payment of subsistence allowance was in ignorance of the fact of Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, being declared ultra-vires, which had bee duly communicated to the authorities.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that fresh memorandum of charge and second charge-sheet was framed and issued against the petitioner on 28.05.2020 after withdrawal of the Memorandum of Charge dated 11.02.2020 by the same authority containing the same and identical allegation. On perusal of Memorandum of Charge dated 28.05.2020, it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority, while framing the charge against the petitioner, had concluded the guilt of the petitioner and disclosed the cl