J. SELVARAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a member of the Railway Protection Force was removed from service by Ext. P-2 penalty advice dated 19-2-1977 passed by the Assistant Security Officer, Madurai, for having found the petitioner guilty for the charge of unfitness for duty in that while on off duty at KCVL on 27-5-1976 after having performed 08 to 16 hrs. duty he had committed theft by extracting six fancy glass tumblers and one fancy glass jar from a crate due to invoice No.39 of 2-2-1976 ex. FZD to TVC kept inside the Goods shed at Kochiveli for effecting delivery. Though the petitioner submitted an appeal against Ext. p-2 that was rejected by Ext. p-3 memorandum dated 7-5-1977 issued by the Security Officer, Southern Range, Thiruchirappalli. A revision filed by the petitioner against Exts. p-2 and p-3 orders was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Security Officer by his order dated 29-12-1977, a true copy of which is Ext. p-4.

(2.) Sri N. Ramanathan Pillai, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate and revisional authorities had committed grave mistake in not noticing that the charge levelled against the petitioner being one of theft he ought to have been proceeded against in accordance with the provisions contained in Regn. 3 of Chap. XX of the Railway Protection Force Regulations, 1966. The said rule lays down as follows:-

(3.) I do not think that there is any legal basis for this argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The provisions contained in Chap. XX are the provisions for dealing with crime generally, and I am afraid it has little or no reference to disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Railways. Assuming that it relates to the employees also, it cannot be said that the provisions contained in Chap. XV and Chap. XX are exhaustive (exclusive?) of each other. It may even be that the Railway authorities may have the option either to proceed against the culprit in a criminal court or, in the case of a culprit who happens to be an employee, to proceed according to law after holding an enquiry into the charges levelled against him. In this case the charge levelled against the petitioner would fall squarely within Regn. 3 (i) of Chap. XV of the Rules which insists that every railway servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity.