The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure and non-discrimination in departmental proceedings, and the need for findings to be based on evidence and not suffer from perversity.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by him in Ref.No.M/XP/227/07/2010 dated 11.12.2018 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.2019/SEC(E)/DAr/3/19 dated 29.04.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The Writ Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 11.12.2018 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent on 29.04.2019 and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is that, the petitioner entered services of the respondents as a Police Constable on 01.04.1987. The petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case file by one M.Ekambaram, alleging that the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.700/- per month as illegal gratification for selling food items on a handcart near Perambur Carriage Works Railway gate.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the amount was demanded only on behalf of the Inspector, Mr.Durai and there was no direct allegation against the petitioner. However, Crime No.2/2008 came to be filed on the file of Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB,SPE, Chennai. A trap was organised and records were created showing as if the petitioner received the contraband and he was trapped. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he did not demand any illegal gratification from the complainant. However, charge sheet was laid before the Principal Special Judge, CBI cases on 31.12.2007 and charges were framed and the case was transferred to Special Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.2 of 2008. A similar case was also initiated against the inspector, Mr.Durai.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that based on the charge sheet in the criminal case, the 1st respondent issued a charge memo on 16.04.2010 under the RPF Act, containing the very same set of allegations. Similarly, against the Inspector of Police also on the same set of allegations, a charge memo was issued alleging violation of Rs.146(1) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 apart from the other violations that were alleged against the petitioner.

5. It is further contended that in the Departmental enquiry three witnesses were examined in respect of the petitioner''s case and one witness was cited as a prosecution witness. All the records referred to in the criminal case were relied on for the purpose of proof of the charges in the departmental enquiry. The 3rd respondent conducted an oral enquiry against the petitioner. The very procedure adopted in appointing two separate enquiry officers to conduct enquiry against two persons involved in a same transaction is according to the petitioner, in violation of R.163 of The Railway Police Protection Force Act, 1987. However, since the co-delinquent, the Inspector of Police did not object, the authorities proceeded against both the petitioner and the respondent separately.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that all the witness cited in the criminal case were cited in the departmental enquiry and all the documents relied on by the prosecution in the criminal case have also been the basis of the charges in the departmental enquiry.

7. The co-delinquent viz., Inspector of Police approached this Court in W.P.No.23759 of 2012 and sought for a direction to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance and this Court was pleased to grant an interim order. The petitioner filed W.P.No.24120 of 2012 challenging the charge memo proceedings and at the time of admission, an interim injunction was granted. In the meantime,