CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER Vs. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 11 December 2013 setting aside the orders that were passed against the respondent in disciplinary proceedings with a direction to the disciplinary authority to consider the claim of the respondent afresh by passing a reasoned order.

(2.) The respondent was a Constable in the Railway Protection Force. A charge sheet dated 1 September 2001 was issued to the respondent under Rule 153 of The Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The charge of misconduct as contained in the charge sheet is that on 6 January 2001 he was assigned duty in the shift from 00.00 hours to 08.00 hours at Jhansi Loco Post but he unauthorisedly remained absent from duty till the issuance of the charge sheet. The Inquiry Officer held that the charge of misconduct was duly proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the respondent to which he submitted a representation. Finding the explanation of the respondent to be unsatisfactory, the disciplinary authority removed him from service by an order dated 28 November 2001. The appeal and the revision filed by the respondent were also dismissed on 6 June 2002 and 21 December 2002 respectively.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after noticing that the respondent who was under treatment at the Medical Hospital at Ranchi reported for duty and was permitted to join on the basis of a fitness certificate issued to him on 12 October 2001, has interfered with the orders of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority as the situation was found to be beyond the control of the respondent since he was under medical treatment and a certificate was also issued by the Mental Hospital, Ranchi. Moreover, it has been held that even if the respondent was not fit to discharge his duties as an armed constable, any other duty ought to have been allotted to him in the office or at any suitable place without issuing arms. On this ground, the orders that were impugned in the writ petition were set aside and the disciplinary authority was directed to consider the claim of the respondent afresh by passing a reasoned order.