RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Qamrul Hasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pratul Kumar Srivastava appearing for the Railways.
(2.) THE facts as averred in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 8-7-1976 on the post of Sub-Inspector after being found fit by the Railway Service Commission. On account of his good work and conduct he was promoted on the post of Inspector in year 1981 by the competent authority. While the petitioner was posted as Post Commander, Hardoi, a departmental enquiry was ordered for failure to exercise control over Sub-Inspectors and other staff such as S/Shri B. S. Sharma, Trilok Nath, Sub Inspector Jagdish Mishra, ASI and Constable Brij Kumar Tripathi. After the enquiry, the Chief Security Commissioner passed the order dated 30-3-1990, providing therein that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from the date of receipt of this order. He also observed in the said order that the allegation of lack of control has been proved against him. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 28-4-1990 which was rejected by the Director General, RPF by the order dated 5-10-1990. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed a Revision Application as provided under Rule 219 (1) of the RPF Rules, 1987 before the Ministry of Railways, Government of India. In appeal as well as in the Revision, the appellant took specific grounds that inspite of repeated request the Inquiry Officer was not changed though the petitioner showed the reasons for bias and prejudice mind of the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer was hell bent to harm the petitioner any how. Further, the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner which is against the principles of natural justice. Apart from other legal grounds. The Revision Application preferred by the petitioner was not decided by the authority concerned inspite of considerable lapse of time as such the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 4306 (SS) of 1993. This Court by an order dated 21-5-1993 while disposing of the writ petition directed the authority concerned to decide the revision expeditiously.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders and the inaction on the part of the authority concerned, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.;