HARI SHANKER PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders impugned, dismissing him from service, and its affirmance in review, appeal & revision.

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that petitioner was initially appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force in 1962, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Rakshak on 1.12.1977. He got posted in Coy No. 2 at out post Kannauj in April, 1982. Petitioner asserts that while posted as such, he recovered 7 bags of cement belonging to Railways from the custody of the respondent no. 6 i.e. Assistant Sub Inspector, Bhopal Singh on 23.4.1982, in which he was charge-sheeted arrested and later bailed out. It is claimed that the respondent no. 6, on such count, maintained enmity with the petitioner. On 6.5.1982, upon receiving information from one Rama Shanker, about certain stolen railway property being kept at petitioner's quarter, respondent no. 6 is stated to have gone to petitioner's official quarter at 8.15 p.m. and upon pointing of said Rama Shanker, it is claimed that one wooden plank and two window frames were recovered from his house. Petitioner claims that he was assaulted by respondent no. 6 on the next day and a medical certificate has been annexed to substantiate it. It is also claimed that a complaint was also made by the petitioner in this regard. On the basis of the alleged stolen railway property recovered from the premises of petitioner, a criminal investigation was instituted. In view of the pendency of such criminal investigation, petitioner was placed under suspension on 7.5.1982. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was served upon him on 28.9.1982. The charge-sheet states that on the basis of the information received, respondent no.6 alongwith his colleague recovered the offending material, i.e. stolen railway property from the possession of petitioner and proceedings under Section 3 of the Railway Protection Act were instituted being case Crime No. 7 of 1982, which was reprehensible for a railway employee. Petitioner initially submitted a letter dated 28.9.1982 demanding certain documents for enabling him to file a reply. It seems that petitioner was permitted to inspect the documents which were available and found relevant. Petitioner, however, again submitted a letter on 11.10.1982 stating that documents relating to criminal proceedings, which is stated to have been initiated against the petitioner has not been supplied to him. This letter was replied by the respondents on 14.10.1982, stating that whatever documents were demanded, had already been permitted to be inspected and the remaining documents have no relevance for the present purposes and, therefore, such request was denied. It seems that petitioner thereafter proceeded to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. In the reply submitted by the petitioner, it was categorically stated that he has been framed by respondent no. 6, as he felt aggrieved on account of petitioner having seized the railway property from him, wherein charge-sheet had been submitted and he had to ultimately seek bail. In para-15 of the reply, petitioner has specifically stated that there was no visible mark upon the recovered property, which may show that the property recovered was a railway property. It was also stated that no documents were brought on record to show even otherwise that in relevant records maintained by the railways, the plank and windows were shown as stolen property of the railways. It was, therefore, stated that the entire accusation against petitioner is false and is a result of a conspiracy hatched against him by the respondent no. 6 which had no basis or substance. The charges, accordingly were emphatically denied.

(3.) It would also be relevant to notice that the case crime registered against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Railway Protection Act, was investigated and ultimately matter was referred to prosecution cell, for launching prosecution against the petitioner. The file appears to have been examined by the prosecution officer and on the basis of the materials available on record, it was opined that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not made out. Such opinion was based upon the fact that the property recovered had no railway marks nor it had been established that such property could not be shown to be possessed by anybody else. Doubts were expressed upon the recovery memo as it had not mentioned the time when the concerned officials had left and reached the official quarter of petitioner and who were other persons residing with the petitioner in the same quarter. It may be noticed that after such objection was raised by the prosecution cell, proceedings under Section 3 of the Act were not proceeded further against the petitioner. No document had been brought on record to show that any criminal complaint was filed, although according to the respondents, criminal prosecution was not launched as the value of railway property was less than Rs. 50.