PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged two departmental enquries conducted by way of two separate charge-sheets and the punishment orders passed separately in the two charge-sheets.

(2.) Ordinarily and in the normal course the writ petition would not lie assailing two charge-sheets and two different orders of punishment and two separate writ petitions ought to have been filed challenging the orders. However, writ petition filed in the year 2001 stood admitted on 05.02.2008 and is listed for final hearing, therefore, I deem it appropriate to decide the case on merits and deal with both the charge-sheets separately. First Charge-sheet:-

(3.) The first charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was vide memorandum dated 19.09.1998 and served on the petitioner on 28.10.1998. Enquiry Officer was appointed on the day charge- sheet was issued. The petitioner has alleged that when he reported on duty on 29.10.1998 at R.P.F. Post, Phulera, he did not have any notice regarding any date of enquiry or appointment of Enquiry Officer. However, on 1.11.1998 his statement was recorded by one Devi Lal Rathore, Assistant Sub-Inspector and he was handed over a letter fixing date of enquiry as 8.11.1998. On 6.11.1998 petitioner had been attached with Escort Company in Jaipur and thus he could not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 8.11.1998. He sought time to appoint a defence representative which was rejected and enquiry officer fixed the date to be 14.11.1998. Petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and again requested the enquiry officer for giving him time to appoint defence representatives. Whereafter he submitted a consent letter of his defence representatives but the Enquiry Officer did not accept the same under Rule 153 of the Rules of 1987. The petitioner was sick and he sought permission but the same was refused and ex-parte proceedings were ordered on 06.01.1999. On 7.1.1999 petitioner submitted two applications pointing out that Enquiry Officer had not conducted enquiry in terms of Rules and the enquiry officer had obtained his signature forcibly and under duress and the petitioner also moved another application requesting to change the Enquiry Officer. But the grievances of the petitioner were not redressed and the enquiry officer held enquiry ex-parte against the petitioner. Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report which was made available to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation to the enquiry report and objected to the ex-parte enquiry conducted but the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposed punishment of reduction of his pay in the pay scale by 5 stages for five years effecting his future grade increments by order dated 16.4.1999.