SANJOY KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging an order of suspension dtd. 7/10/2003, charge sheet dtd. 23/10/2003, the dissenting note of the disciplinary authority dtd. 11/6/2004, the order of punishment dtd. 30/7/2004 and the order passed by the appellate authority dtd. 4/8/2005.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a constable of Railway Protection Force (RPF) of South Eastern Railway. At the time when the instant writ application was filed, he was posted at Adra. While the petitioner was working at RPF post Adra, he was placed under suspension by an order dtd. 7/10/2003. Subsequently, a charge sheet dtd. 23/10/2003 was served on the petitioner. Without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the charge sheet, the name of the enquiry officer was announced and the date of enquiry was also fixed. After conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority had by letter dtd. 11/6/2004, forwarded the findings of the enquiry officer along with the dissent note and called upon the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner had responded to such show cause, whereupon the final order of punishment dtd. 30/7/2004 was passed, thereby reducing the pay of the petitioner by one stage lower, in the time scale of pay for two years with recurring effect. Although a statutory appeal was preferred, the appellate authority refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Mr. Majumder learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that there was irregularity in the enquiry proceedings conducted by the respondent no.2 from the very beginning. He says that at the time when the charge sheet was issued, the respondent no 2, had made up his mind to hold the petitioner guilty. It is for such reason, without bothering to wait for the petitioner's reply, the date of enquiry was fixed and the enquiry officer was appointed. It is submitted that the enquiry proceedings, itself, stands vitiated on account of failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the charge sheet prior to taking a final decision for holding an enquiry. In support of his above contention, he places reliance on a judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sanjoy Kumar Singh "vs- Union of India and Ors. [Sanjoy Kumar Singh "vs- Union of India and Ors., 2002 (2) SLR 266] and an unreported judgment of this Hon'ble Court delivered in the case of Dilip Kumar Palit "vs- Union of India and Ors., in W.P. No. 5097 (W) of 2003 [Dilip Kumar Palit "vs- Union of India and Ors., W.P. No. 5097 (W) of 2003].