SHYAM BAHADUR LAMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a Constable of Railway Protection Force and is posted in the workshop under South Eastern Railway at Kharagpur. Departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. He was suspended w.e.f. 24.1.1994. Subsequently the order of suspension was revoked. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.5.1994 which has been made Annexure-A to the writ petition. The allegation against the petitioner was that there was wilful omission of duty on the part of the petitioner for prevention and detection of offence. It was also alleged that he remained absent from duty without reporting his whereabouts under a false coverage of a Medical Certificate dated 6.2.1994 issued from Midnapore.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing since he was not supplied with copies of relevant records and documents. The petitioner alleged that he sent representation dated 10.5.1994, 10.6.1994 and 16.6.1994 which were made Annexures-B, F and G to this writ petition.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer cannot direct the petitioner to submit the name of his defence counsel for and below the rank of Sub-Inspector in terms of Rule 153.8 of R.P.F. Rules, 1987 inasmuch as the said rule has been declared ultra vires in a judgment delivered by Hon'ble Justice Manoranjan Mallick in C.O. No. 6694 (W) of 1991 dated 6.12.1991 in the matter of Tarapada Chowdhury v. Union of India and Ors. and C.O. No. 2600 (W) of 1992 passed by Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha (as his Lordships then was) in V.K. Khanna v. Union of India and Ors. and in another judgment in Sanjoy Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 (2) SLR 266. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer, on consideration of the entire evidence on records found the petitioner not guilty of the charges and submitted his report on 12.6.1995. The said report of the Inquiry Officer has been made Annexure-P.