RAJENDRA KURUP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Though in the Writ Appeal several points have been urged, we do not think it necessary to go into all of them in detail, as the appeal can be disposed of on a point of law which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.

(3.) Factual position, briefly stated, is as follows:- Appellant is a member of the Railway Protection Force (in short 'the R.P.F.'). At the relevant point of time, he was working at Ernakulam South Railway Station. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge that he had been indulging in lending money at exorbitant interest to unauthorised vendors in the Railway Station. It was also alleged that by misusing his powers as a member of R.P.F., he gained illegal gratification from unauthorised hawkers. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the appellant to be not guilty. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the appellant was guilty and advised that he did not deserve to be kept in a disciplined force like R.P.F. and direction was given for his removal from service. Aggrieved by this, appellant filed an appeal before the Chief Security Commissioner of the Southern Railway. Appeal was partly allowed and order of removal was modified, and a lesser penalty of reduction in pay by one stage for two years was imposed, and a warning that he should not indulge in any such activity in future was given. Aggrieved by the said order, Original Petition was filed. Learned Single Judge observed that appellant's grievance regarding non grant of reasonable opportunity of being heard before the first order of penalty was passed was not factually correct, as the disciplinary authority gave detailed reasons and copy of the enquiry report was also served on him. The fact that appellant had been let off with a minor penalty was also taken note of, and the Original Petition was dismissed.