ATTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Ahmedabad, has prayed as under:-

(2.) Before proceeding with the main contentions raised in this petition, it is necessary to give brief facts about the case. That a complaint was lodged against one Shri S.K.Sharma, Inspector, RPF, Ahmedabad, Western Railways on 06.12.2008 levelling allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the charge against the petitioner was under Sections 343, 348 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the charge sheet registered as Special Case No.51 of 2010 with Special Judge, CBI Court No.3, Ahmedabad. By an order dated 06.08.2012, Director, RPF, Railway Board communicated to Additional Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Western Railways, Mumbai, informing him that in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, on behalf of Hon'ble President of India, sanction was accorded for institution of departmental proceedings as per the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 against the petitioner. Accordingly, Article of Charges came to be issued along with an order for conducting departmental proceedings on 11.09.2012. Upon receiving such an order, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 19.09.2012 to stay the departmental inquiry. However, departmental proceedings against the petitioner continued. Thereafter also, the petitioner received various communications, i.e. on 10.07.2013 and 14.07.2013 about preliminary hearing of the case pursuant to departmental proceedings and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court so as to challenge initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 on several main amongst other grounds.

(3.) Shri I.H.Syed, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent authority lacks power to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner in view of no amendment carried out in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the Pension Rules, 1993. It is submitted that the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 provides Section 2 containing definition. Section 2(1) (a) defines "Force". Clause-(c) defines "Member of the Force" and Clause-(f) defines "Superior Officer". Section 3 is about "Constitution of the Force". Section 4 pertains to "Appointment and power of superior officers". The petitioner herein falls in the category of superior officer holding post of Assistant Security Commissioner at the time of retirement, which is equivalent to Assistant Commandant. Section 10 of the Act, 1957 is about Officers and Members of the Force deemed to be Railway Servants and every member of the force shall, for all purposes, be regarded as Railway servant within the meaning of the Indian Railway Act, 1890 other than Chapter-VIA and shall be entitled to exercise of powers conferred on Railway servant by or under that Act. Section 21 of the Act, 1957 confers powers to make Rules upon the Central Government by notification in the official gazette. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 reads as under:-