IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 9037 of 2011 Laljee Prasad -Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder For the Respondents : Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya Ms. Ranjana Chatterjee Heard on : 06.02.2025, 03.03.2025, 11.09.2025 Judgment on : 02.02.2026 Uploaded on : 06.02.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner serving as a Constable of the Railway Protection Force under the Eastern Railway and posted at the RPF Post. T.E. Coy, Malda narrates the trajectory of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him as one marked by haste, preconception and then erosion of the very safeguards that the law enshrines for ensuring fairness in administrative action. The proceedings spanning the period from 30th August, 2008 to 6th April, 2010, according to him reveal a disturbing pattern in which statutory mandates and elementary principles of natural justice have stood compromised at every decisive stage.

2. The petitioner recounted on 30.08.2008 he was placed under suspension on the premise of contemplated departmental proceedings, a suspension which was subsequently revoked on 30.09.2008. Almost simultaneously on 06.09.2008 with a purported charge-sheet was issued alleging he in concert with other RPF Personal had extracted Rs.5,000/- from travelling passengers, an incident set to have triggered agitation and disruption of train movement. The petitioner asserted even at that juncture the Disciplinary Authority had disclosed a biased and predetermined mind, as the charge sheet was accompanied by the announcement of the Enquiry Officer and the fixation of the enquiry date without granting him the foundational right to tender his reply. Such conduct, in his view, was not merely irregular but a grave departure from fairness portraying the authority had already reached a preconceived conclusion of guilt.

3. The petitioner emphasized the language employed by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of framing charges particularly the reference to his “suspicious manner” in relation to G.R.P.S. Malda Case No.23 of 2008 betrayed a premature and impermissible adjudication of culpability. A disciplinary process that commenced with such pre judgment, the petitioner submitted, stood shorn of neutrality from its inception.

4. The petitioner further stated the enquiry initiated under the stewardship of A. K. Singh, Inspector T.E. Coy Malda Town, unfolded in a manner wholly inconsistent with the expected standard of an impartial quasi judicial proceeding.

5. During the enquiry, six prosecution witnesses were examined and sixteen documents were exhibited. The petitioner averred that fourteen documents were never furnished to him prior to its use in evidence thereby crippling his opportunity to respond meaningfully and prepare an effective defence.

6. The petitioner had submitted his comprehensive written defence on

27.05.2009, drawing attention to several illegalities embedded in the conduct of the enquiry. However he asserted his defence was never considered in its true spirit. The enquiry officer according to the petitioner abandoned the mantle of neutrality and descended into the arena of prosecution engaging in searching cross examination of his own weaknesses and relying upon conjecture, extraneous considerations and his personal beliefs rather than the evidentiary record. The findings dated 22.07.2009 as contended were perverse, speculative and demonstrably tainted with bias.

7. The petitioner was there after served with a second show-cause notice dated 24.07.2009, which in the submission was issued in a manner reflective of predetermined bias as the Disciplinary Authority had already reached the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty, proposing the penalty of withholding his next increment of three years with cumulative effect. He submitted a detailed reply on 03.08.2009 yet the Disciplinary Authority by Order dated 17.