PAVITHRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Karthikeya Panicker at length and the counsel for the R.P.F. The Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment in O.P. 13993/97. The appellant filed the Original Petition to call for the records leading to Exts. P4 and P6 and quash the same and for a mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Ext. P4 is the order passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Trivandrum imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant by upholding that the appellant is guilty of the charges of violation of R.21 of the Railway Servants Conduct Rules and R.146.1, 46(c) and 247 of RPF Rules, 987. He has passed a considered order. We have gone through the same. The Divisional Security Commissioner for reasons recorded in his order under Ext. P4 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. He has also held that the appellant has contracted a second marriage which is also clearly admitted in his representation dated 4.9.1995 when the first marriage was in subsistence. He has also failed to report of the pendency of a criminal proceedings against him to the authorities concerned. Therefore, considering the grave charges the Divisional Security Commissioner imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Under Ext. P6 a mercy petition filed by the appellant was rejected and the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 12.9.95 was upheld.

(3.) In this case the appellant when he was working as HC/F/Painter/TVC was issued with a charge sheet under R.153 of the RPF Rules, 1987 vide DSC/TVC charge memorandum No. VXP/227/153/1/95 dated 12.1.95 for the following charge:-