Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
A. Rajasekaran – Petitioner
Versus
The Director General of Railway Protection Force, New Delhi and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 22589 of 2013
Decided On : 07-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Prem Kumar.
For the Respondent: Ramachandramurthy.
The court established the interpretation and application of Rule 1322 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 in the context of imposing penalties on railway servants.
Headnote:
Penalty - Railway Servants - Rule 1322 of Indian Railway Establishment Code - Rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - The court discussed the imposition of both minor and major penalties for one incident, the power to impose penalty under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, and the interpretation of Rule 1322 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, was charged with various violations including the loss of a pistol and subsequently faced compulsory retirement. The Revisional Authority modified the punishment to reduction in rank and placement in a lower scale of pay, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the imposition of the penalty of reduction in rank and placement in a lower scale of pay was sustainable in law, citing relevant rules and previous judgments.
Issues: The main issue was the sustainability of the penalty imposed by the Revisional Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 1322 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and previous judgments to support the decision to uphold the penalty imposed by the Revisional Authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide No. 2011/Sec(E)/DAR-2/3(CC) dated 15.02.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay all the service and monetary benefits to the petitioner with interest.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide No. 2011/Sec(E)/DAR-2/3(CC) dated 15.02.2011, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay all the service and monetary benefits to the petitioner with interest.
2. The short issue which arises in this case is as to whether both minor and major penalty can be imposed for one incident. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force. He was promoted as Head Constable. On 21.04.2005, he was assigned for an escort duty to travel in train bearing number 5012 from Chennai Central to Jolarpettai. At about 3.20 A.M. the petitioner went to attend nature call in the toilet, the petitioner's pistol fell in the toilet due to the jerks in the train. The petitioner pulled the alarm. The train stopped. This incident took place between Avadi and Hindu College railway stations. The petitioner alighted from the train to search the pistol and the train departed.
3. The petitioner tried to trace out the pistol, but due to darkness, the pistol could not be traced since it was dark. The pistol was finally recovered in a damaged condition at about 07.30 A.M. The Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Chennai, suspended the petitioner pending contemplation of charge.
4. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 23.01.2006. Four charges have been framed against the writ petitioner. The charges are read as under:-
"Charge 1: He was directed with instructions to report before IPF/NHC/MAS for train escort by IPF/AJJ on 14.12.2005. While performing Train escorting duty by Tr. No. 5012 GKP-TVC Express Ex.MAS-JTJ, he was found wearing chappals instead of Ankle boots on 24.12.2005. Thus, he has violated Rule 123.2 of RPF Rules, 1987
Charge 2: He had miserably failed to secure the 9 mm pistol Butt No. 910 in the pouch properly by putting the flap and buttoning the pouch, which resulted in the drop-page of piste1 in one of the toilet of ACT Coach of Tr. No. 5012 Express in between AVD and HC (Hindu College) on 24.12.05 thereby failed to keep it in safe custody and upkeep while in his charge and possession. Thus, he has violated Rule 127.1 of RPF Rules, 1987.
Charge 3: He was issued with the pouch in good condition by Sri. H. Bharmalingam, HC 21B/NGO/A on 24.12.05. He had wilfully and wantonly tampered the flap with intention to escape from the clutches of punishment. Thus, he has violated Rule 147(11) of RPF Rules, 1987.
Charge 4: He had miserably failed to inform the very serious incident of the drop-page of pistal from his possession either to his superiors or to DSCR which caused much hardship for the search team to locate the place of drop-page of the pistal on 24.12.2005. Thus, he has contravened Rule 146.2(i) of RPF Rules, 1987."
5. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Chief Security Commissioner. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 10.05.2007, upheld the penalty. The writ petitioner filed a revision to the Government. Pending revision, the petitioner was also filed a writ petition in WP No. 5756 of 2008, against the order dated 10.05.2007, passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal. This Court by an order dated 25.11.2010 in WP No. 5756 of 2008, directed the Revisional Authority to dispose o
