ATMA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant impugns the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.4.2003, dismissing his writ petition. The appellant herein was working as a Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway at Ferozepur. He was served with a Memorandum dated 30.3.1981 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules ) read with Section 9(1) (i) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ). The memorandum, inter alia, alleged that some miscreants stole Bengal Coal from Loco Shed Ferozepur (duty point Nos.6 & 5) weighing about 427 Kgs. either with the active connivance of Atma Singh (the appellant) and Kashmir Singh or due to their negligence. It was alleged that the miscreants upon being challenged by others on duty ran away, leaving behind the coal. The appellant in his reply to the memorandum, denied the allegations. A departmental enquiry found that the charges levelled against the appellant and another Rakshak, namely; Kashmir Singh were fully proved. The Chief Security Officer accepted the enquiry report and issued a notice dated 14.12.1981, requiring the appellant, to show cause against his proposed removal from service. The appellant s reply was found to be unsatisfactory and vide order dated 12.2.1982, the Chief Security Officer directed removal of the appellant from service. An appeal and thereafter a revision filed by the appellant were also dismissed. The appellant, thereafter, impugned the aforementioned orders by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 9.4.2003. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant, alleged that the Assistant Security Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry was vitiated due to bias, as the appellant s guilt had been pre-judged. The orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities stood vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of personal hearing had been granted to the appellant. The revisional authority s order was passed in violation of Rule 60 read with Rule 58 of the Rules and the punishment was arbitrary and shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the appellant. The learned Single Judge held that the Act and the Rules, left no manner of doubt that the Assistant Security Officer was competent to initiate disciplinary action, as the appellant was initially appointed by the Assistant Security Officer. It was also held that the enquiry did not suffer from any illegality, violation of the principles of natural justice or bias. It was also held that as the appellant had failed to establish any prejudice for the alleged violation of the Rules and even though the decision of the revisional authority did not depict a literal non compliance of Rule 60, it did not call for interference. Another finding recorded, was that the punishment did not shock the conscience and could, therefore, not be held to be disproportionate to the offence committed.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments on two points. The first being, that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and the second that the order passed by the revisional authority was violative of Rule 60 read with Rule 58 of the Rules.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant contends that a perusal of the charge sheet, the memorandum of charges, the enquiry report, the order of removal and the orders passed in appeal and revision, do not indict the appellant for connivance or collusion in the pilferage of coal. The appellant, has been found guilty of negligence. The authorities failed to consider that no loss was caused as the coal was immediately recovered. The fact that appellant had already put in 25 years of service, at the time of his dismissal was not considered and, therefore, the order of punishment was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.