S A BASHA Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Inspector in the RPF. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge-sheet in August, 2006, wherein certain charges were framed. After receiving the explanation, submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority appointed the third respondent, as an Enquiry Officer. Departmental enquiry was conducted, and ultimately, the third respondent submitted his report on 29. 8. 2006, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner, are proved. The first respondent, in turn, addressed a letter, dated 1. 2. 2008, to the petitioner inviting his objections/comments on the findings recorded in the report. The petitioner filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in submitting his report, on the ground that he did not permit him to cross-examine the witnesses named in the charge-sheet, during the course of enquiry.

(2.) SRI J. M. Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is entitled to engage the services of a "friend" under Rule 153 (8) of the Railway protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short "the rules") and that the third respondent did not extend such facility, though, a "friend", by name J. K. Nanda, was accorded permission to a limited extent.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner cannot challenge the report of the Enquiry officer, which is only in the form of an opinion and cause of action cannot be said to have accrued to him. He contends that the petitioner also submitted explanation, and at this stage, the proceedings cannot be interdicted.