UNION OF INDIA Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated May 19, 2004. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondents, Om Prakash and Gopal Singh and, consequently, set aside the dismissal order passed against them.

(2.) The facts emerging from the record show that respondent No. 1, Om Prakash, was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force on February 7, 1996. Similarly, respondent No. 2, Gurpal Singh, was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force on January 14, 1979. After due training, both the said respondents were assigned regular duties. The said respondents were on duty at Chakki Bank Railway Station near Pathankot in the year 1996. The duty of the petitioners was to guard the properties of the Railway. They were also required to inspect the seal checking of the goods wagons. The said respondents also claimed that when they reported for duty, they were handed over the charge by the official whom they relieved and in the evening while going off duty, they relinquished the charge to the next official. The respondents have claimed that no adverse remarks were ever communicated to them and they performed their duties to the best of their capability.

(3.) However, a large number of thefts of railway property were detected. The authorities investigated the matter and found that respondents Om Prakash and Gurpal Singh and other officials, namely, Ajaib Singh and Jagjit Singh etc. were mixed up with criminals in commission of organised thefts on Railway booked consignments from wagons standing at Old Military siding, Chakki Bank Station of Pathankot Post. The said facts came to the notice of the authorities on the statement of Bishan Singh son of Jagan Nath on April 3, 1987 when he was arrested in case No. 2/87 by RPF Post, Pathankot. At the instance of aforesaid Bishan Singh, a part of the stolen property was recovered from the respondents also. The railway property was found to be stolen by the gang of criminals headed by Dharam Paul in the night of January 21, 1987 and February 21, 1987, from wagon No. WRC 62453 and NRC 23911 in which 49 bundles of blankets from each wagon were stolen. The aforesaid Bishan Singh further admitted having committed several thefts along with his associates from the Railway Wagons with the tacit consent and active connivance of RPF staff. It was also found that the aforesaid criminals used to pay illegal gratification to the RPF staff on duty as a share of the booty. The said accused also disclosed that this gang used to get deputed RPF men of their choice through Sub Inspector Dilbagh Singh. After commission of the theft, the aforesaid officials used to refix and manipulate the seals of the concerned wagon. On August 24, 1987, a similar statement was made by Devinder Pal alias Shikanha during the investigation. Since on disclosure statement, a part of the stolen property was recovered from the respondents, their statements were found to be correct. No other witness was present. The matter had become very serious and the authorities found that the RPF staff which had been deployed to protect the property of the railways was conniving with the criminals to commit serious offences. The authorities further found that SI Dilbagh Singh was creating serious apprehension in the minds of the accused persons and had influenced hem not to testify against them in case of a departmental enquiry. Further Gurpal Singh respondent No. 2, himself admitted in his statement before the RPF that he was in league with the criminals and had taken illegal gratification for commission of thefts. On that basis, the competent authority, acting under rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') held that it was not possible and practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondents and, therefore, the holding of a departmental enquiry was dispensed with. The respondents were ordered to be dismissed from service vide order dated August 31, 1987. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order by filing a departmental appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the competent authority on March 9, 1988. The order dated August 31, 1987 and the appellate order dated March 9, 1988 were impugned by the respondents through a writ petition before this Court.