UNION OF INDIA Vs. PINTU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.12.2018 passed in WP 25140(W) of 2016 wherein the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 21st September,2012, and the orders of the appellate authority dated 1st March, 2016 and reviewing authority dated 22nd July, 2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent/ writ petitioner was employed as a constable with the Railway Protection Special Force. On September 4, 2012 the respondent was posted at New Delhi Railway Station. An FIR was registered against him on September 5, 2012 for commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident as alleged occurred on September 4, 2012 when the respondent was on duty at New Delhi Railway Station. In course of investigation, the respondent/writ petitioner was arrested after the registration of the FIR and pursuant to submission of charge-sheet and framing of charges, custodial trial commenced against him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court 2 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. During the pendency of criminal trial the Commandant Officer, No.8BN / RPSF / Chittaranjan by an order dated September 21, 2012 by exercising his powers under Rule 161 (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "RPF Rules") dismissed the respondent/ writ petitioner from service. The respondent/ writ petitioner thereafter approached the Appellate Authority, who by an order dated 1st March, 2016 was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Being aggrieved, the respondent / writ petitioner also approached the Reviewing Authority and the Authority by an order dated 22nd July, 2016 was pleased to dismiss the application.

(3.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 21stSeptember, 2012 passed by the Commanding Officer and submitted that after a fact finding enquiry and its recommendation, the authority had to take a decision. In fact, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the nine witnesses who were examined by the enquiry officer and also the statement of the accused which was recorded after taking due permission from the Court, as at the relevant point of time the accused was in custody. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that the respondent / writ petitioner being a member of a disciplined force had to face the consequences. According to the settled principles, the invocation of Rules 161 (ii) and (iii) of the RPF Rules were substantiated by reasons and the learned Single Judge ignored the same while arriving at his conclusion. He further submits that number of reasons have been cited for not conducting the disciplinary proceedings.