HIRA LAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging not only the order of suspension dtd. 26/9/2007 but the disciplinary proceeding including the charge-sheet dtd. 22/10/2007, the findings of the enquiry officer dtd. 27/11/2008, the second show-cause notice dtd. 4/12/2008, the order of punishment dtd. 16/12/2008 and the order passed by the appellate authority dtd. 20/4/2009. The petitioner is a constable of the Railway Protection Force (in short, 'RPF') of Eastern Railways and at the time of institution of the instant writ petition was posted at RPF, Jamalpur Yard Post under Malda Division. In course of employment and while working at CIB Asansol, as a Constable, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect from 26/9/2007 on the ground of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding. He was further directed to give his attendance at Liluah Revenue Line. Following the aforesaid order of suspension, a charge-sheet dtd. 22/10/2007 was issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner wherein it has been, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner had absented himself from duty without any intimation. The particulars of charge against the petitioner as would corroborate from the statement of charges is extracted hereinbelow:

(2.) The same was supported by a statement of allegations, list of documents and a list of witnesses, as well. The disciplinary proceeding was conducted based on the aforesaid charge-sheet and ultimately, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Consequent to the aforesaid, by a communication in writing dtd. 4/12/2008, Assistant Security Commissioner as the disciplinary authority of the petitioner forwarded the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner had since, responded to the said enquiry report whereupon a final order dtd. 16/12/2008 was passed holding the petitioner guilty thereby, imposing a penalty of withholding the next increment due for two years with cumulative effect and his suspension period was to be treated as suspension for all purpose. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 1/1/2009. By an order dtd. 20/4/2009, the appellate authority had upheld the order of punishment and the petitioner was informed accordingly. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Majumder, learned advocate by drawing attention of this Court to the charge-sheet dtd. 22/10/2007, submits that prior to issuance of the charge-sheet, no show-cause was issued calling upon the petitioner why enquiry proceeding shall not be initiated against him. By referring to the list of documents to the charge-sheet which is at page 36 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the report of IPF/CIB/ASN vide no. ASN/CIB/Con/07 dtd. 3/8/2007 was never supplied to the petitioner. It is still further submitted that when the aforesaid charge-sheet was issued, the Assistant Security Commissioner had already made up his mind to hold an enquiry against him and as such simultaneously with issuance of the charge-sheet had also appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. The aforesaid would clearly demonstrate more than an element of bias against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority even without waiting for a reply to be given by the petitioner had outrightly appointed the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. The aforesaid procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is sufficient to vitiate the entire enquiry.