Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
A. Rajasekar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India rep by The Inspector General – cum- Chief Security Commissioner,Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 13939 of 2015 & M.P. No. 2 of 2015
Decided On : 17-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.S. Govinda Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, S. Janarthanam, Special Panel Counsel, R4, No appearance.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority must prove charges based on a preponderance of probability and relevant evidence, and that absence from duty must be willful to warrant punishment.

Headnote:
Railway Services (Conduct) Rules - Suspension and Reduction in Rank - Rule 6 of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules - [Rule 6(vi)] - The court quashed the orders imposing suspension and reduction in rank, directing the authorities to treat the period of suspension and absence as duty, restore the petitioner to the post of Head Constable, and pay arrears of wages and benefits.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a railway employee, was suspended and had his rank reduced from Head Constable to Constable. The petitioner had lodged a complaint against another individual and was subsequently assaulted, leading to his absence from duty. The disciplinary authority found the charges against the petitioner to be proved and imposed the aforementioned punishment.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the absence from duty was willful and that the charges were framed against the petitioner illegally. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the authorities to treat the period of suspension and absence as duty, restore the petitioner to the post of Head Constable, and pay arrears of wages and benefits.
Issues: The issues involved the imposition of suspension and reduction in rank on the petitioner, the validity of the charges framed against the petitioner, and the failure of the disciplinary authority to prove willful absence from duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority must prove charges based on a preponderance of probability and relevant evidence. It also emphasized that the absence from duty was not willful and that the charges were framed illegally against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, directed the authorities to treat the period of suspension and absence as duty, restore the petitioner to the post of Head Constable, and pay arrears of wages and benefits.

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 relating to the order/proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein namely the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Chennai 600003, bearing No. M/XP/227/14/10 dated 25.07.2011 and proceedings of the 2nd respondent namely the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Chennai 600003 and bearing No.nil dated 04.09.2012 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent namely the Inspector General cum Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Chennai 600003, bearing No. nil dated 04.10.2013 quash the above said three orders and consequently direct the respondents herein to treat the period of suspension from 11.09.2010 to 26.01.2011 (Amended as per the order of this Court dated 19.07.2018 made in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.13939 of 2015) as one of duty for all purposes and to pay wages and allowances for the above said period in the post of Head Constable and to treat the period of absence from 04.09.2010 to 06.09.2010 as one of duty for all purposes and to pay wages and allowances with attendant, service and other monetary benefits for the above said periods in the post of Head Constable and to restore the Petitioner to the post of Head Constable which he was holding on 10.09.2010 prior to suspension and pay the arrears of wages in the above said post within a short date that may be fixed by this Court and to withhold the retirement benefits due to be paid to the fourth respondent herein who is retiring on 31.07.2015 on his reaching the age of superannuation.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 25.07.2011, thereby imposed punishment of reduction in post from Head Constable to Constable for the period of three years and treated the period of suspension from 11.09.2010 to 26.01.2011 as suspended and the period of absent from 04.09.2010 to 06.09.2010 as leave without pay and the order of the second respondent dated 04.09.2012, thereby confirming the order passed by the third respondent in the appeal and the order of the first respondent dated 04.10.2013, thereby confirming the order passed by the second respondent in the revision.

2. The petitioner had joined in service of third respondent as Constable on 10.11.1981 and completed his probation period in the year 1983. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Naik in the year 1997 and in the same year he was promoted as Head Constable and he was due promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. While being so, the petitioner lodged complaint as against one K.Gnanaprakasam alleging that he released teak wood beams and rafters.

3. In that regard, on 04.09.2010, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the Inspector of Protection Force and he assaulted the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged complaint dated 04.09.2010 before the concerned police station and the same was not considered. Hence, he filed direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 21773 of 2010, seeking direction to take appropriate action on his complaint dated 04.09.2010. Due to the assault, the petitioner got admitted in the Government Hospital, Royapettah and he was discharged on 07.09.2010. Therefore, the absent from 04.09.2010 to 07.09.2010, is not an unauthorized absent and it was due to the assault made by the Inspector of Protection Force and he got injury and admitted into the hospital.

4. Thereafter, he received letter dated 08.09.2010, stating that he was due of duty on 04.09.2010 and he misbehaved with Inspector of Protection Force and left from the port and did not report duty. Therefore, he was marked absent for duty from 04.09.2010 onwards. After discharging from the hospital, he came with certificate that he was an inpatient in the Government hospital fro