UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARLOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARLOK Singh was working as Naik in the Railway Protection Force, Ferozepur under the Commandant, Railway Protection Force, Ferozepur. He was removed from service vide order dated 5.7.1986 of Commandant, Railway Protection Force, Ferozepur. His appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, New Delhi vide order dated 3.J 1.1987 conveyed to him vide letter dated 13.11.1987 by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railways, Ferozepur. He filed revision petition which was dismissed by the Inspector General -cum -Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi vide order dated 5.1.1989. He went in further revision which was dismissed by the Director General, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi vide order dated 1.1.1990. He challenged all these orders through a suit for declaration filed by him against Union of India saying that these orders are illegal, arbitrary, capricious, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act and the rules and principles of natural justice, fair play, equity and as such are in -operative, null and void and that he continues to be in the service of the Railway Protection Force as if he was never removed with all benefits, emoluments and other benefits admissible to him from time to time. It was alleged in the plaint that charge sheet which culminated into his removal from service was not in accordance with Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. It was vague, indefinite and did not contain sufficient material as required under the law and the rules. Charge sheet was defective in nature and was not issued with an open mind as it pre - supposed his guilt without any formal proof. It was not drawn in accordance with the rules. It did not contain the entire list of witnesses and the description of documents by which the department had proposed to sustain the charges. He was put to grave prejudice in the preparation of the defence and cross -examination of the departmental witnesses. He was not given an opportunity to have the assistance of a co -worker as he was not conversam with the intricacies of the departmental rules and the procedure of enquiry. He is not that qualified as to defend himself in the enquiry by himself. Department should have provided him the assistance of a counsel or at any rate that of a co -worker. He applied for the assistance of a co -worker. His request was rejected when the department was provided with a presenting officer. He should have been provided with a co -worker to assist him. It is further alleged in the plaint that enquiry was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer was not delegated with the power to hold the enquiry nor was he himself a punishing authority. He could be removed from service only on the grounds mentioned in Rule 51 sub -clause 2(b). Charges levelled against him did not fall under this rule, as such, the punishment of removal from service was illegal, null and void. It was a case of no evidence, complaint on the basis of which enquiry was initiated was anonymous . It was not signed by anybody. No charge could be framed on such a complaint. Charge sheet was against Railway Board's circular and instructions particularly the Railway Board's letter No, EP DAG -A/85 CP/4 dated 12.12.1985. Inquiry Officer did not record his statement. No prosecution evidence was put to him. If the prosecution evidence has been put to him, he could have explained the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. Essential witnesses were not produced during the course of enquiry. He was not given an opportunity to cross -examine the prosecution evidence. Inquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. Proper opportunity was not granted to him as required under this Rule. He was not given opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses. None appeared before the Inquiry Officer in order to prove the complaint against him. Copy of the complaint on the basis of which plaintiff was charge sheeted was not supplied to him and as such, the enquiry proceedings are liable to be set aside. He was not given any personal hearing either by the punishing authority or by the Appellate Authority. AS1 Lekh Raj, Constable Prahlad Sharma and SI M.S. Dogar were charge -sheeted on similar charges but only minor punishment was awarded to them.

(2.) DEFENDANT -Union of India contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that the charge sheet was issued to the plaintiff in accordance with the Railway Protection Force Rules and Regulations. It was perfectly correct charge sheet issued in accordance with the Railway Protection Force Rules and Regulations. He was offered the assistance of a co -worker. Inquiry Officer was appointed by the competent authority and the enquiry was not without any jurisdiction. Removal of the plaintiff's was ordered by the competent authority in accordance with the Railway Protection Force Rules and Regulations in force. Inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations. All the necessary reasonable opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to defend himself. He had taken all the relevant documents from the DAR case file as desired by him. He was given personal hearing by the disciplinary authority on 14.5.1986 as per his request.

(3.) PLAINTIFF went in appeal against the order of Sub Judge IInd Class, Ferozepur dated 23.1.1995. Vide order dated 15.10.1998, Additional District Judge, Ferozepur allowed the plaintiffs appeal and set aside the order removing him from service and declared that he is entitled to the entire back wages for the period during which he remained out of service. It was, however, directed that the Punishing Authority could take action against him afresh but in accordance with the rules and regulations, if it considered it necessary to take action against him.