R M PRAHALADANMURTHY S/O R MUTHAIAH Vs. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE SOUTHERN RAILWAY MMC 6TH FLOOR CHENNAI - 03, THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance but has not filed any statement of objections.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are as follows: The petitioner claims that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and that he joined the services of the Railway Protection Force, Madras in the year 1988 it transpires that when he was working as a Head Constable at Mysore in the year 1998 he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry. The background to which was on allegations as to the petitioner being guilty of gross negligence of duty and having acted in criminal conspiracy with one other head constable to abet the theft of 100 bags of fertilizer commited by outsiders including one Munna and others, from a railway wagon while the petitioner was on duty and thus being a member of the armed forces, had acted in a manner unbecoming a member of the force and on his failure to perform the duty with integrity and that being in violation of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, the petitioner was placed under suspension, The others involved viz., one Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, 3 Head Constables and 2 Police Constables were also placed under suspension. Subsequent to the charge sheet, an enquiry having been conducted, though the petitioner had insisted on a joint enquiry, the findings were arrived at against the petitioner holding that the charge was proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.]

(3.) FROM a plain reading of the material on record, the petitioner seeks to demonstrate that though he was on duty he was not responsible for the theft and it could at best be held to be negligence in his duty which did not invite the extreme punishment of dismissal, cannot be readily accepted. The fact that he does not deny that he was on duty at that point of time would hardly enable the petitioner to take such a defence. The petitioner not even having informed his superiors, if he was not involved in the misconduct, on the same day but claiming to have informed the superiors on the next day is yet another circumstance which would not absolve the petitioner of the allegations. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner seeks to challenge findings of fast and even if this Court were to form a second opinion, this would hardly be a case where in judicial review of the said findings, any interference is warranted by this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.