PRAVAL PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions arise from the same proceeding. They have been argued together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The Petitioners were working with the Railway Protection Force. Praval Pratap Singh (Writ Petition No. 5406 of 2019) was working as a head constable in the Railway Protection Force, Bhusawal Division. Vikas Singh Rajput(Writ Petition No. 5511 of 2019) worked as a constable in the Railway Protection Force, Thane - Matunga Division of the Central Railway. Vinit Kumar Pandey( Writ Petition No. 5597 of 2019) was working as a head constable in the Railway Protection Force, Mumbai Division of Central Railway. The Petitioners were removed from service. Their appeals and revision appeals have been dismissed. These orders are challenged by the Petitioners in their respective petitions.

(3.) A complaint was filed by one Sameer Zaveri, who collected information regarding the illegal activities of personnel of the Railway Protection Force. The information revealed that certain personnel of the Railway Protection Force were cheating railway passengers by creating fake bail bonds. Railway personnel had printed fake bail bonds. Since there was no investigation, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 29 of 2010 came to be filed in this Court, and this Court transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). An investigation was carried out by the CBI, and the charge-sheet was filed by the CBI in Special Case No. 14 of 2013 in the Court of Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay. The Petitioners were arraigned as accused along with others. The departmental inquiry was also initiated against the Petitioners, and a memorandum of the charge sheet dtd. 17/12/2010 was issued to the Petitioners. The inquiry was held, and the inquiry officer submitted a report that the charges against the Petitioners were proved. The Petitioners submitted their reply to the report of the inquiry officer, and thereafter, the Respondents - Railway Authorities imposed the penalty of removal from service on the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed appeals which were dismissed, and thereafter, the revision appeals were filed, which also came to be dismissed. The Petitioners were removed from service, and the orders of removal from service were confirmed. After dismissal of the revisions, in the criminal trial under the common judgment dtd. 3/11/2017, the Petitioners came to be acquitted of the charges. After acquittal, the Petitioners submitted representations to the Respondent - the Chief Security Commissioner to review the case and reinstate the Petitioners in view of the order of acquittal. The Respondent - the Chief Security Commissioner rejected the prayer of the Petitioners for reinstatement, observing that the court of departmental inquiry and the criminal trial is different. In the departmental inquiry, the charges have been proved, and therefore, there is no need to review the order of removal from service. Challenging these orders, the Petitioners are before us.