DEOKI DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is the departmental proceeding, charge- sheet, the inquiry and the inquiry finding as well as the second show cause notice. The petitioner was charge sheeted by an Assistant Security Commissioner. Charge-sheet bearing No P. F.6(9) 153/92 dated 25/09/1992. On the basis of the charge-sheet departmental inquiry was held and as a result of the departmental inquiry the petitioner was given punishment to the extent of removal from service. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated 25/09/ 1992, finding of the Inquiry Officer dated 7.12.1992 and the second show-cause notice dated 7.12.1992 being annexure 'B' 'H' and to respectively to the writ petition. Once on the same charge-sheet a departmental proceeding was initiated and ultimately, punishment order was passed and the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner challenged the said departmental proceeding and the removal order in a writ proceeding being C.R. No. 15184(W)of 1982. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated August 26th, 1992 by His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice K. M. Yusuf (As His Lordship then was). While disposing of the said writ petition His Lordship made the following observations: - In my opinion, there was no materials for arriving at the satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any fair enquiry against the petitioner under the RPF Rules. The respondents have not produced before the Court any documents or papers to satisfy the reasoning given by the authorities for not holding the disciplinary proceeding. The respondents simply argued without placing any substantial materials before the Court. An injustice has been done and the petitioners were penalized without any established facts of offence against them. It is admitted in paragraph 7 on page 5 of the Affidavit-in-opposition that it was "reasonably suspected" that such, offence had been committed. Though it is claimed that the enquiry was based on documentary facts and not otherwise but the respondents have no guts to place those documentary facts before the Court. It is very difficult to say whether the petitioners were actually guilty of the offence or not and whether their removal from service was justified or not because everything is clouded in mystery and confined within the files of the respondents. In my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to relief on this count. In above circumstances, the Division Orders being Nos 683/82,684/82, 685/82, 686/82 and 687/82 all of dated 8th December, 1982 are hereby quashed. But the writ petitioners shall not be entitled to join their duties and liberty is given to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law within 30th September, 1992 and complete the proceeding by passing the final order within 31 st December, 1992. In case the respondents do not start and complete the proceeding in accordance with the above direction then writ petitioners shall be entitled to join their duties in the Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railways on and from 1st January, 1993 and shall be entitled to all the arrears of salaries and other benefits including due promotions, if any, as well as the continuity of service. The writ application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs. Let xerox copy of the judgment be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(2.) On the basis of the liberty given by His Lordship in the said writ petition the departmental authority started fresh departmental proceeding. This proceeding proceeded up to second show-cause stage and accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the said proceeding up to that stage before any punishment was inflicted. Though the petitioner averred that no punishment order was served on him but the Union of India in its affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 3 clearly stated that the final order was passed on 24.12.1992 and the same was pasted in the Notice Board on the RPF Post, Dhanbad and the order of the Hon'ble High Court restraining from giving any effect of the proposed decision of Inquiry Officer was received on 29.12.1992. According to the authorities the interim order in the eye of law is infructuous. However, the petitioner challenged the proceeding up to second show-cause stage.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the proceeding on various grounds including the ground that the authorities wrongly relied on Rule 153.8 of the RPF Rules, 1987 and that Rule is ultra vires and accordingly the proceeding is bad.