G BABU Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Order No. M/xp-227/28/83 dated 2. 9. 1993 as confirmed by the order dated 11. 8. 1995, made in proceedings No. X/p-227-1099 by the first respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from 2. 9. 1993 onwards with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was working as constable in the Railway Protection Force from 1976; that on 29. 6. 1992, a charge was framed against him relating to certain traveling allowance bills; that on 18. 7. 1992, while he was on duty at about 11. 30 A. M. , the Assistant Security Commissioner, enquired him about the charge memo. issued to him and asked him to come and meet him at his office; that on 21. 7. 1992, when the petitioner met the Assistant Security Commissioner at his office at about 10. 30 hours, he asked him to come with the original charge memo. and Rs. 15,000/- so as to help him in the disciplinary proceedings case, further stating that since he was opting for the Driver's Test, if the departmental enquiry is held, his future would be spoiled; that the petitioner told him that he could not spare such a huge amount, for which the Assistant Security Commissioner reduced the amount to Rs. 10,000/- and split the same into two instalments of Rs. 5,000/- each to be paid at the time of extending help in the Driver's promotion; that again on 23. 7. 1992, he met the petitioner in the lift and told him that he was waiting to help the petitioner for which he asked him to part with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the original charge memo. ; that the petitioner made a complaint to the Director General of Railway Protection Force at New Delhi bringing to his notice all the facts.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that the Director General of Railway Protection Force has directed the Chief Security Commissioner to make enquiries into the allegations contained in the complaint of the petitioner and to submit a report; that the Chief Security Commissioner conducted a discreet enquiry and came to the conclusion that the allegations and averments contained in the complaint are without any evidence either through witnesses or documents and are therefore fictitious and frivolous; that an inference was drawn to the effect that such allegations were made by the petitioner only with a motive to malign the image of the Assistant Security Commissioner who is the Disciplinary Authority in the disciplinary proceedings; that on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 27. 11. 1992, a charge memo. was issued to the petitioner on 15. 12. 1992 alleging that while functioning as a constable, the petitioner had submitted a report to the Director General making certain allegations against Shri Fernandez and since those allegations were false, the petitioner had committed an act grossly insubordinate or insolent to his higher officer which is punishable under Section 9 (1) of the Railway Protection Force Act; that after conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 17. 7. 1993, holding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved; that a letter dated 20. 7. 1993, along with the report of enquiry officer was forwarded to the petitioner, directing him to submit his explanation to the Disciplinary Authority; that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 23. 7. 1993; that by order dated 2. 9. 1993, the explanation of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect; Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 30. 9. 1993, which was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 9. 8. 1995. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal as well as the order rejecting the appeal the petitioner has come forward to file this Writ Petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of Writ Petition.