GOPAL CHANDRA MAITY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts : The petitioner was proceeded against under Rule 44 of Chapter 9 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959, on the basis of a charge sheet issued against him. The charge so levelled was that the petitioner absented from duty without any authority. In the enquiry, petitioner was found guilty and a punishment of removal was proposed; but the disciplinary authority was incompetent to pass such an order. Therefore, it was forwarded to a higher authority. The higher authority had gone through the materials and has concurred with the finding of the enquiry and had purposed a punishment of removal. Accordingly, a notice was served upon the petitioner, asking him to show cause why such punishment should not be inflicted upon him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered the matter and had passed an order of removal. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority affirmed the order of removal. Against this order the petitioner made certain representations, which have not been considered. Therefore, he had filed this writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the basis of 1959 Rules. But after the charge-sheet was issued, the 1987 Rules came into force. The 1959 rules stood repealed. Therefore, this proceeding could not have been proceeded against on the basis of the 1987 Rules. It should have been continued under the 1959 Rules, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 280.2 of the 1987 Rules. The said provision of repeal prescribes that proceedings taken under the old Rules shall be taken as if the new rules have not come into force. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the proceedings having been conducted under the 1987 Rules, the same is wholly void and cannot be given effect to. He further contends that the charges, that were leveled against him, were vague and indefinite and does not make out a ground for proceeding against him. He further contends that Rule 44 relates to the procedure for conducting the disciplinary proceeding. It did not relate to any charge. As such, in the absence of specification of such charge, under which the petitioner was to be proceeded against, the charge sheet was vague. He had taken several grounds with regard to the merit of the disciplinary proceeding as well as the finding. He further contended that booth the Appellate Authority had taken into consideration various extraneous matters, which they could not have taken into consideration. Particularly, the Appellate Authority had relied upon conduct, which was not the subject matter of disciplinary proceeding. As such, the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. He had explained the delay that the petitioner had been making several representations, which have not been replied to. Submission of the Respondents :

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the impugned order was passed sometimes in 1988-89. The order of the Appellate Authority was passed in 1989. The last representation was made in 1989. In between no other representation was made. Only a few days before, the writ petition was affirmed, another representation was made to the Chairman, Railway Board, in Dec. 2001. This writ petition was affirmed in Jan., 2002. He had also assailed the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on merit. He contended that there was no infirmity in the proceedings. He further contended that the proceedings were undertaken under the old Rules and not the new Rules. On this ground he prays that this writ petition should be dismissed. Proceedings conducted under 1959 Rules or 1987 Rules :