RAJESH KR CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20.06.1984 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Special Force (hereinafter referred to as "RPSF"). In the year 1990 the petitioner was attached with detachment of E Coy of 7th Battalion, RPSF, which detachment took over the static guard of Malsian-Shahkot railway station outpost (herein after referred to as the "Railway Station") with effect from 29.06.1990. It be noted here that following persons attached with the detachment were deployed at the railway station for static station guarding duty under the command of HC Rup Singh Bardloi: (i) petitioner; (ii) Naik Amarjit Yadav (herein after referred to as the deceased); (iii) Naik Govind Shah; (iv) Naik Indresh Prasad Yadav; (v) Naik Sher Singh; (vi) Const.Sat Pal Singh; (vii) Const.Birsa Torpo; (viii) Const.Ram Pratap; (ix) Const.Ram Lakhan and (x) Cook B.B.Ghose.

(2.) On 08.07.1990 the deceased Nk.Amarjit Yadav was murdered at the railway station. It was alleged by the other members of the detachment that the petitioner was annoyed with the deceased as he had an argument with him due to which reason he fired three rounds from his service rifle at the deceased which resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased. On the said basis, the police registered an FIR No.119/1990 under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner.

(3.) Inspector Ram Sanehi, Coy Commander of the said detachment, conducted a preliminary inquiry into the incident during which he recorded the statements of the members of the detachment. In his report dated 14.07.1990 Inspector Ram Sanehi opined that HC Rup Singh Bardloi, Naik Sher Singh, Const. Sat Pal Singh and Const.Birsa Torpo had fabricated a false story and concealed true facts with respect to the role played by them in preventing the incident and in apprehending the petitioner after he had murdered the deceased. It was further opined by Inspector Ram Sanehi that the said persons had shirked from their responsibility inasmuch as they did not take adequate steps in preventing the incident of the murder of the deceased and apprehending the petitioner and thus recommended a departmental action to be taken against them in said regard. As regards the petitioner, he prima facie opined a case being made out to proceed against the petitioner in a departmental inquiry.