AMARENDRA MAHANTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner was the public prosecutor under the South Eastern Railway and working at Chakradharpur at the relevant point of time. The writ petitioner was served with an order of suspension dated 30th March, 1995 followed by a charge sheet dated 21st April, 1995. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in accordance with the provision of the Code Criminal Procedure the public prosecutors appointed therein were answerable to their departmental head. As such when the writ petitioners along with others were appointed as Public Prosecutors, they were to provide for an independent and separate organisation which should have an independent departmental head and as such the order of suspension and charge sheet issued by the Deputy Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force were not valid and binding upon him. In support of such contention two decisions had been relied on:

(2.) In the case of S.B. Shahane & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in Judgment Today 1995 Vol. IV, SC, 245 : [1995(2) SLR 747 (SC)] the Apex Court held that there should be a creation of separate cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Prosecutors and this is not to be under control of the Police Force and there should be a separate prosecution department for conduct of all prosecution by them before the Magistrate Court and making the head to be appointed for such department who shall be responsible to the State Government. Following the said Apex court decision in case of prosecuting personnels of the Railway Protection Force have been held to be free from the clutches of the hierarchy of the Railway Protection Force by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Soltan Singh (Supra). The Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sohan Singh (Supra) relied on a decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kissen Singh Kundu Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) two paragraphs of the said Bench judgment as relied on by the Single Bench is quoted below:

(3.) I do not find any reason to disagree with the Division Bench and Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sohan Singh (Supra) and Kissen Singh Kundu (supra) respectively. Relying on the said two decisions I hold that the order of suspension and the charge sheet issued upon the petitioner by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force are had and illegal and are accordingly quashed. The respondent authority is, however, granted liberty to appoint an appropriate person to head the prosecution department. In case, such appointment is made the said authority so to be appointed would be entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner on the self same charges if he so desires. Writ petition is thus disposed of.