G BABU Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.

(2.) THE petitioner has entered into the services of the Railway protection Force in the year 1976. While he was working as a Constable, on 29. 6. 1992 a charge was framed against him relating to claim made by the petitioner in respect of his travelling allowance. According to the petitioner, on 18. 7. 1992, while he was on duty at about 11. 00 A. M. , the Assistant Security commissioner by name Shri Edgar Fernandez visited the place of duty and took the petitioner to the lonely place for a secret conversation and directed the petitioner to meet him during the rest time. As per his directions, the petitioner met the Assistant Security Commissioner on 21. 7. 1992, during which time, the petitioner was promised that the said Officer would help him in the disciplinary proceedings and also would ensure that he would get further promotion as a Driver, for which a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was demanded, which was later on reduced to Rs. 10,000/ -. Subsequently, the petitioner had chosen to make a complaint to the Director General of Railway Protection Force viz. , the first respondent herein, about the demand made by the said Shri Edgar fernandez. Consequently, the first respondent has directed the Chief Security commissioner to make enquiries on the allegations made in the complaint of the petitioner and accordingly an enquiry was conducted and a report was arrived at that the said complaint is a frivolous one. On the basis of the said report, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15. 12. 1992 to the effect that the petitioner had submitted a false complaint to the first respondent making allegations against Shri Edgar Fernandez and thereby the petitioner had committed an act of grossly insubordinate or insolent to his higher Officer which is punishable under Section 9 (1) of the Railway Protection Force Act. Consequent to the said charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted a report after conducting an enquiry. THE third respondent, by order-dated 2. 9. 1993, has passed an order of punishment of dismissal from service, which was confirmed by the appellate authority viz. , the second respondent by proceedings dated 11. 8. 1995. Aggrieved against the said orders, the above writ petition is filed.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the learned senior counsels appearing on either side.