NRIPEN CHANDRA SARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.3.91 of the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, N.F. Railway, dismissing the petitioner from service as well as the order dated 10.6.91 passed by the Inspector General-cum- Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the said order of dismissal, and for a direction on the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full pay and allowances and other service benefits.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was a constable in the Railway Protection Force working under the North-East Frontier Railway (for short "NF Railway"). While he was working as a constable at the Diesel Shed at Siliguri, he alongwith other two persons, was placed under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings by the Divisional Security Commissioner, NF Railway, Katihar by order dated 11.4.89. By Memorandum dated 10.7.89, the said Divisional Security Commissioner,NF Railway, then initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As per Article of charges annexed to the said Memorandum, charges against the petitioner were that while he was functioning as a constable of NF Railway on 21.11.88 at Beat.Nos. 1 and 2 from 14.00 hrs. to 22.00 hrs at Diesel Shed at Siliguri, he failed to prevent or detect theft of one core after cooler element from his beat at the said Diesel Shed, rather he connived in commission of theft of the said core after cooler element and shared the sale proceeds of the said material belonging to the Railways with the said two persons, constable Sarat Chandra Jha and constable H.P. Biswakarma, giving them Rs. 130/- each and retained the rest to himself. The further charge against the petitioner was that in order to hush up the case he along with his said associates gave illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 5100/ - to Sri P. Mishra, the then IPF/Diesel Shed, Siliguri, through an outsider when Sri P. Mishra was inquiring into the case and had come to know of the involvement of the petitioner in the said theft of Railway material. The said Memorandum dated 10.7.89 stated that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in utter violation of Rule 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules and was guilty of unbecoming of a member of the Armed Force of Union of India. By the said Memorandum dated 10.7.89, the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence and accordingly the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 3.10.89 to the Divisional Security Commissioner, NF Railway, Katihar denying the charges. Thereafter, one Sri S.K..Chatterjee, the then Asstt. Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway at Katihar was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the said charges. At the enquiry against the petitioner and his is associates constable Sarat Chandra Jha and constable H.P. Biswakarma, the Enquiry Officer examined 13 witnesses produced on behalf of the Department. While the petitioner and Sri S.C. Jha participated in the said enquiry, Sri H.P. Biswakarma remained absent at the said enquiry on most of the dates. The Enquiry Officer then submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority who after perusing the relevant records, documents and evidence of the prosecution and defence held that the charges against the petitioner had been proved and imposed penalty of dismissal from service by the impugned order dated 27.3.91. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway, Maligaon. But by a speaking order dated 10.6.91 the said appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on the face of the enquiry report the charges against the petitioner had not been established. He further contended that the findings recorded in the enquiry report against the petitioner are perverse. He stated that Sri M.A.Mallick had held a preliminary enquiry during which he had recorded evidence of various witnesses and at the enquiry conducted in the disciplinary proceedings by Sri S.K.Chatterjee, Enquiry Officer, he deposed as to what the witnesses had stated before him at the preliminary enquiry. According to Mr. Kalita, the evidence of P. W. 1 adduced in the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken into account for establishing the charges against (the petitioner. In support of his submission, Mr, Kalita cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Andhra Pradesh -Vs- Sri Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, in which the Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that the High Court may under Article 226 of the Constitution interfere with the findings in the departmental enquiry where the conclusion in the said enquiry on the face of record is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person ever have arrived at that conclusion. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagat Ram - Vs- State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 455, in support of his submission that where the finding of the disciplinary authority is utterly perverse, the High Court can always interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution.