Decided on July 04,1961



- (1.) IN the year 1956 the petitioner was employed as an Inspector in the armed wing of the Railway Protection force and was stationed at Gondia. The respondent No. 4 was at that time the Assistant Security Officer at Bilaspur. The respondent No. 4 caused to be served on the petitioner four successive charge-sheets, one dated 21/9/1956, another dated 25/10/1956 and the other two dated 17/11/1956, charging the petitioner, inter alia, with inefficiency, carelessness, incompetency, falsification of muster roll and failure to do his duty. Thereafter, on December 2, 5 and 6. 1956 there was departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 himself, in spite of protests made by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 4, being himself the accuser, should not conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty of all the charges and the respondent No. 4 recommended that the petitioner be reverted from the post of inspector to that of a Sub-Inspector. Thereupon, by a notice, dated 22/1/1957, the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be punished with reversion from the post of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector. On the petitioner showing cause against the punishment proposed, the respondent No. 3, Security Officer, South Eastern Railway, did not inflict on the petitioner the punishment of severity as proposed but merely punished him with forfeiture of "all remaining passes and P. T. O. 's for 1957". The aforesaid order of penalty was passed on 14/5/1957.
(2.) PRIOR to his posting at Gondia the petitioner was posted at Shalimar, between September, 1955 to May, 1956, and was entrusted with putting down a particular type of crime which was then rapidly is creasing in or around the area of Shalimar Goods shed. In February, 1956, while the petitioner was on leave, the Inspector-General of Police came on inspection at Shalimar and found the state of affairs at Shalimar post very unsatisfactory. Thereupon, he asked the respondent No. 5, an Assistant security Officer, thoroughly to check up the position at Shalimar and the latter in course of his checking up made certain adverse remarks against the petitioner. On receipt of the adverse remarks against the petitioner, respondent No. 3, Security Officer, South eastern Railway, passed the following order of censure against the petitioner, 22/6/1957: "r. N. Bose, I. P. F. , C. K. P. is censured for his slackness in not detecting the irregularities as pointed out by the c. S. O. (?) during his inspection of s. H. M. post on 21/5/1956. "
(3.) AT this stage, the petitioner alleges, the respondent No. 3, H. L. Finnimore, Security officer, went on leave and the respondent no. 4 became the acting Security Officer in his place and the latter induced the respondent No. 2, the Chief Security Officer, to re-open the charges against the petitioner over again. The Chief Security Officer thereupon passed the following two orders against the petitioner: i. Order forwarded to the petitioner on 9/9/1957, hereinafter referred to as the Order of the 9/9/1957. "i have seen the proceedings file and final order. Although it is not obligatory for the officer signing the charge-sheet not to be the one to hold enquiry, it has been laid down as desirable. In the present case it is all the more desirable that the enquiry should be held by another officer. Secondly the punishment imposed by the Security Officer for the charge framed is disproportionately light. Exercising my revisionary power, I set aside the order of punishment and order that the enquiry should start from the stage of reply to the charge-sheet. ";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.