- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Lalji Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) IN this writ petition the order dated 27-2-1989 passed by the Commanding Officer, Battalion No. 3 Railway Protection Special Force, Lucknow (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) has been challenged with a prayer to quash the inquiry officer proceedings and charge-sheet and further seeking direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner entire arrears of salary from 27-11-1980 to 27-2-1989. It appears that the petitioner was a Constable in Railway Protection Special Force and was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987 and was said to raise slogans by virtue of being R. P. S. F. Association being a member of association; 'rpsf Jindabad' in the course of Sainik Sammelan held by Asstt. Commanding No. 2 Bn. /rpsf on 18-11-1980. The petitioner was also charged for leaving sainik sammelan alongwith other participants of sammelan except N. C. O. s and was also charge-sheeted for misconduct and gross indiscipline. The petitioner's service was dispensed with by order dated 27-2-1989 by Assistant Commandant under Rule 47 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 after dispensing with the INquiry Officer and procedure 45, 46, 47 of 'rules 1959'. The petitioner preferred appeal and revision against the above order and appeal/revision thereafter, both were dismissed. The writ petitioner preferred against the revisional order dated 3-6-1986 was set aside with the directions to the respondents authority to initiate fresh inquiry accordance with law. After passing of the aforesaid order of the High Court the petitioner by order dated 7-4-1988 of Assistant Commandant II Bn. Railway Protection Special Force, Gorakhpur was placed under suspension under Rule 134 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (in short called 'rules 1987') a charge-sheet dated 19-4-1988 was issued under Rule 153 of 'rules 1987' and inquiry officer was appointed who held the inquiry and after taken into consideration the records and statements of Sri Ram Singh, Bachcha Tewari, B. N. Singh, Mukhiyar Singh, Pratap Singh and J. P. Lal Srivastava a fresh charge-sheet dated 11-11-1988 was also issued by the Second Bn. Railway Protection Force, Gorakhpur and after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing the enquiry report was submitted. On the basis of enquiry report the petitioner was dismissed. It appears that the petitioner was a constable in Railway Protection Special Force and was issued a Major Penalty charge-sheet under Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987 vide No. BN/pro-145/hqr/88-3554 dated 11-11-1988 for the following offence : (1) Raising slogans "rpsf Association Zinda-Bad' in the course of Sainik Sammelan, induced the staff to by-cott the Sainik Sammelan held by (the then) Asstt. Commandant No. 2 BN/rpsf Sri H. K. Mishra, at Katrashgarh in the morning on 18-11-1980. (2) Finally leaving the Sainik Sammelan and taking away the other participants of Sanik Sammelan alongwith him except the NCOs. (3) Gross misconduct and breach of discipline. It has also been noted in the order dated 27-2-1989 as below : "it has been reported by (the then) Coy. Commander `b' Coy 2 BN/rpsf (Shri J. B. Singh) vide his report No. 2 BN/b/7/80 dated 23-11-1980 that in the morning of 18-11-1980, Sri R. K. Mishra (the then) Asstt. Commandant No. 2 BN/rpsf/gkp visited `b' Coy of 2 GKP/rpsf Headquartered at Katrashgar, and held Sainik Sammelan of the staff in the varandah of the station building. Besides others, Const. Uttam Chand Prasad also attended the Sammelan. In the course of `sainik Sammelan' Constable Uttam Chand Prasad stood up and started raising slogans `rpsf Association `zinda-Bad' and induced the staff present in the Sammelan to by-cott the same. Finally, he left the Sainik Sammelan, taking away the other participants of the Sainik Sammelan alongwith his except the NCOs".
(3.) THE Enquiry Officer conduced the enquiry and held the party charged guilty of the charges levelled against him. THE disciplinary authority after agreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer and drawing its own findings has submitted the whole case file to the undersigned for action and punishment which is not in the competency of the disciplinary authority. The whole incident was supported by the PWs during initial stage but later on the PWs retraced the statement and did not support their original statements. From their previous statements and cross- examination done during the enquiry it is abundantly clear that all the PWs had given correct and voluntarily statements without any force being exerted on them by any source. They seem to be giving different statement than the one which indicates their sympathy for the party charged for the reasons best known to them. From the record it is also not clear as to why and under what circumstances of what events promoted the party charged to raise such slogans to act in such a highly indiscipline way during Sainik Sammelan. In case the party charged had some grievance the same could have been brought to the notice of the proper authority in the police and disciplined way for redressal.;