Members of a disciplined uniformed service are held to high standards of conduct both on and off duty. Any act bringing discredit to the organization constitutes grave misconduct punishable by removal. Proportionality review by courts is limited where internal disciplinary proceedings are procedurally sound and evidence-backed.

JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :

1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13-14/08/2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Mumbai, thereby, imposing a penalty of removing him from service, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings being conducted and on he being found guilty in terms of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. In view of the said order, he was directed to deposit his appointment letter, identity card, medical facility certificate, uniform and all other valuables handed over to him as an employee of the Railway.

The aforesaid order was upheld in the Revision by the Appellate Authority on 04/09/2018 and was further upheld by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Mumbai, CSMT on 14/01/2019, when his representation was ultimately rejected.

2 We have heard the learned counsel Mr.Samir Vaidya for the Petitioner and Mr.Abhijeet Joshi for the Respondent-Railway.

Writ Petition having been admitted on 18/01/2021, on completion of the pleadings, we have taken up the same for hearing.

3 The Petitioner was appointed as a Constable with the Railway Protection Force and during the course of his assignment, he was appointed as Commando at Mulund, Mumbai and thereafter transferred to Kalyan Railway Station.

The alleged incident which formed the basis for removal of the Petitioner from the services, occurred at Kalyan Railway Station.

According to the Petitioner, on 18/06/2018 on completion of duty hours, he was feeling unwell and he positioned himself on a bench on Platform No.4 at Kalyan Railway Station. He was seated next to a lady who was speaking with someone on her mobile, when suddenly a person sitting on his right side sprung up, abused him and slapped him, which took the Petitioner by surprise. After this, the lady sitting to the left side of the Petitioner started wailing and huge crowd surrounded them, but the Petitioner managed to disperse the crowd and directed the person who slapped him to RPF Post situated at Kalyan Station. In the meantime, the lady for whom the ruckus had occurred disappeared.

According to the Petitioner, no complaint was registered against him by any member of public or even the lady, however, the video clip was widely circulated on social media, which reflected the incident which took place at around 22.00 hours on Platform No.4 at Kalyan Junction.

4 It is the case of the Petitioner that followed by the incident, on 20/06/2018 he was called upon by the Inspector at at RFP Post Thane and he abided by the said direction. The Petitioner was asked to furnish his statement/complaint in writing in regard to the alleged incident, which was recorded in form of a video and circulated. He, accordingly, submitted the written statement.

The Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 22/06/2018 and he was placed under suspension and was directed to attend the office of Wadi Bunder, CSMT. The charge-sheet resulted in conduct of inquiry between 29/06/2018 to 21/07/2018 and on 21/07/2018 the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service for the alleged act of indecent behaviour with a woman seated on Platform No.4 at Kalyan Junction Railway Station. He was also informed that the Disciplinary Authority will determine the punishment to be imposed upon him based upon the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

On 01/08/2018, the Petitioner filed his detailed and exhaustive reply refuting all the allegations levelled against him and maintained that he has not committed any act of indecency as alleged. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered and despite the fact that no person had approached the Commandant and/or the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, with any complaint, nor the woman had made any complaint, the Petitioner adopted a plea that the punishment of dismissal proposed to be imposed upon him, is grossly disproportionate and not in accordance with the settled