SEKHAR KUMAR KANJILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought for quashing of the charge sheet dated 13th June, 2008, being Annexure-P-7 to the writ application.

(2.) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows:-The petitioner was an Inspector of Railway Protection Force of the South Eastern railway. During the period from 1998 to 2005, he was awarded with cash reward, commendation letters and merit certificate on several occasions by the higher authorities. His name was recommended for Indian Police Medal on the occasion of the Republic Day, 2005. He was allowed the benefit of financial upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. 8,000/-Rs. 13,500/- with effect from 1. 10. 1999 under Assured Career Progression Scheme. There was no vigilance case nor any departmental proceeding pending against him. He also came under the zone of consideration for promotion to the rank of Assistant Security commissioner, RPF. The controlling authority was requested for submission of confidential roll for the year ending 2005, which was required for giving him such promotion. By an order dated 24th June, 2007, the petitioner was transferred from Garden reach under South Eastern Railway to 6 BN, R. P. S. F. , Dayabasti, Delhi. The petitioner filed a writ application, being W. P. No. 11362 (W) of 2007 against the said order of interzonal railway transfer dated 24. 6. 2007. He failed to get any order in his favour. He preferred an appeal but the learned Appellate Court did not interfere. The order of transfer was, thus, upheld. The Deputy Director, Security, Railway Board by order dated 23rd April, 2007 requested the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for violation of conduct Rules by making use of confidential documents for his personal interest. The Chief Security Commissioner sought for clarification from the concerned authority before taking any action against the writ petitioner. The concerned authority of the Railway Board did not issue any clarification nor any order was passed for initiating disciplinary proceeding. After a period of more than a year, a purported charge sheet dated 13. 6. 2008 was served upon the petitioner on 16. 6. 2008 with peculiar and absurd charges framed against him. Those were relating to incident, which occurred during his tenure as Inspector, Garden Reach under south Eastern Railway. The disciplinary authority at the time of framing of charges announced and appointed the enquiry officer and fixed the date of enquiry with the stipulation that the enquiry would be conducted ex parte in the event of petitioners failure to attend such proceeding without giving him any opportunity to submit his reply to the purported charge sheet. The disciplinary authority, thus, sought to proceed with preconceived mind and this would clearly reflect bias on the part of such authority. Such initiation of the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated and bad in law. It violates the basic principles of fair play and natural justice. This was also in violation of the Railway Boards circular dated 31st January, 2003. The petitioner further alleged that the Senior commandant, 6 BN, Dayabasti, Delhi did not have the power and jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the purported incident which occurred during his tenure at Garden Reach under South Eastern Railway. Petitioner further alleged that he was charge sheeted for getting his name recommended for grant of indian Police Medal award in the year 2005 but the authority, who is empowered to recommend for grant of Indian Police Medal award has neither been charge sheeted nor any step has been taken against him. The petitioner could not have had any role to play in getting his name so recommended.

(3.) THE respondent authority responded to the challenge thrown by the writ petitioner by filing such application under Article 226 of the Constitution first, on the ground that it is not maintainable and secondly, that it is premature.