A MOHANRAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records resulting the impugned order No.90, Sec.(E) DAR-3/66 dated 26.08.1994 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was working as Inspector in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). He was entrusted with prevention of theft of railway properties. While so, traders in that region gave a complaint that the petitioner demanded money. Show cause notice was issued and charges were framed that he received a bribe amount of Rs.43,500/-. The Enquiry Officer, after examining the witnesses, found that the charges with respect to receipt of Rs.10,000/- was proved. During the pendency of the charges, the petitioner was kept under suspension from 06.06.1985. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 13.12.1990 to the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary authority issued the second show cause notice on 17.07.1991 and thereafter by order dated 04.09.1991, a punishment of reduction to the rank of Sub-Inspector for one year was imposed. Against that, the petitioner filed an appeal. In the appeal, it was held that one instance of accepting bribe was proved but the punishment was confirmed. This writ petition is filed challenging that order.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not legally sustainable as it suffers from number of legal infirmities. He contended that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated inasmuch as the principle of natural justice was not followed. The petitioner requested for the assistance of a lawyer or legal assistance, since the presenting officer was a member from the CBI and hence legally trained; But, he was not permitted. Further, the complaint copy was not given even when asked for; the statement of witnesses were also not given. Therefore, the entire proceeding is biased and also illegal and no consequences could flow from such an enquiry. Further there is a delay of 6 years in completing enquiry. He was kept under suspension for 6 years and ultimately that period was treated as "dies non". The entire proceedings including the impugned order is liable to be set aside.