SWAPAN KUMAR DASGUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application is a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner through a charge sheet dated 30th May, 2008 issued by the respondent no.3.

(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, are that while working in the post of Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as RPF), the petitioner was transferred to Eastern Railway and was posted as an Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, Passenger Security, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 30th May, 2008 issued by the respondent no.3 proposing to hold enquiry under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as RSDA Rules). Prior thereto when the petitioner was working in the post of Inspector under RPF, "I" Coy Garden Reach, an order dated 25th July, 2002 was issued by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, S.E. Railway transferring the control and supervision of the said RPF "I" Coy, Garden Reach to the Security Commissioner, RPF, S.E. Railways. Such action was challenged by the petitioner through an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No.13909 (W) of 2002 and the said writ application was disposed of by an order dated 19th March, 2003 observing inter alia that so long the petitioner will remain in the post of "I" Coy, Garden Reach, the Security Commissioner, CBI, Garden Reach, namely, Sri B.B. Mishra will not be the disciplinary or controlling authority and any action taken by the said B.B. Mishra against the petitioner would be subject to the approval of the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, S.E. Railway, Garden Reach.

(3.) Records reveal that in the instant writ application, an interim order was passed on 7th April, 2009, restraining the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the first four articles of charge until further orders or until 15th September, 2009 whichever is earlier but liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the fifth article of charge, in accordance with law. The said interim order was directed to continue for a period of 6 weeks after the reopening of the Court after the Puja Vacation by an order dated 17th September, 2009 and the same accordingly expired sometimes in the month of December, 2009.