The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 governs disciplinary procedures for its members, superseding the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and emphasizes adherence to legally distinct frameworks.

JUDGMENT

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The respondents in W.P.(MD)No.25265 of 2018 are the appellants in the present writ appeal.

2. W.P.(MD)No.25265 of 2018 had been filed by the writ petitioner, K.Muniyandi, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash a charge sheet dated 03.11.2018 issued by the first respondent therein namely, the Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli.

3. The writ petitioner had been initially appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force in the year 1997. At the time of filing the writ petition, he was serving as Head Constable at Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction. The charge sheet dated 03.11.2018 alleged that the petitioner had deserted his duty point and had also engaged in an argument with the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli, who had been arrayed as the third respondent in the writ petition.

4. Upon perusal of the records, it is seen that a specific contention was raised before the learned Single Judge to the effect that on the very same day the charge sheet was issued, an Enquiry Officer had been appointed and the date for enquiry was also fixed. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that this procedure violated Rule 9(7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which mandates that a delinquent Railway servant must be given at least 10 days' time to submit a written statement of defence in response to the charges levelled.

5. The learned Single Judge examined the scope of Rule 9(7) and held that the said Rule clearly requires the grant of 10 days to enable the charged Railway servant to file a written statement along with supporting documents. In the present case, such an opportunity had not been afforded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the charge memo with a direction to the respondents to provide 10 days' time to the writ petitioner to file his explanation and supporting documents. The learned Single Judge further directed that the disciplinary authority may thereafter proceed in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. Additionally, it was directed that the entire disciplinary proceedings should be concluded within eight weeks from the date of commencement of enquiry.

6. The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The appellants herein, who were the respondents in the writ petition, raised a preliminary ground that the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 were not applicable to members of the Railway Protection Force, who are instead governed by the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the corresponding Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

8. It was specifically contended that Rule 153.2.1 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 permits the Disciplinary Authority to appoint an Enquiry Officer after examining the grounds of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. Further, Rule 153.5 stipulates that the Disciplinary Authority shall determine the date of commencement of the enquiry, which must be fixed not earlier than 72 hours from the date so determined.

9. On the basis of these provisions, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the charge sheet issued to the writ petitioner was in strict conformity with the applicable service rules namely, the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. It was contended that the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, was not applicable to the writ petitioner, who was a member