R. B. Misra, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties this writ petition is decided finally at this stage in view of the Second Proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) IN this petition prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.9.1999, 22.11.1999 and 29.6.2001 passed by the Senior Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railways, Allahabad, Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railways Baroda House, New Delhi and Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, New Delhi respectively, with a further prayer for commanding the respondents to take the petitioner back in service and allow him all service benefits. The facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as stated by the petitioner are that he was 'Head Constable' in Railway Protection Force (hereinafter in short called as 'R.P.F.') The petitioner had initially joined the service as a 'Constable' in the year 1967 and his service was to be governed by the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter in short called as 'Rules, 1987'). On 25.1.1999 an incident of coal theft was noticed. Sri S. N. Singh, Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force. Northern Railways Kanpur (in short A.C.S., R.P.F., N.R.) assisted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector R. S. Misra of Kanpur Central Post, Assistant Sub-Inspector Ram Adhar Rai of Cash Guard Kanpur and constable Satbir Singh arranged night checking of R.P.F. post "Goods Marshalling Yard" (G.M.C. Post) and they reached in G.M.C. post at about 1.40 hours and noticed that 15 anti-social elements were engaged in unloading and loading of coal bags in two tempos installed at R.P.F. Post G.M.C. At the time of alleged incident of theft constables Girja Shankar Dubey, Satpal Singh and Bachchi Lal were deployed in Beat Nos. 4 and 5 where the said incident of theft alleged to have taken place. The petitioner was posted on roznamcha duty and was having the charge of lock-up. The coal was being stolen from Vagon No. S.E. 27118 Bankola Siding to Bharoli Pathankot and was being taken by a tempo No. U. P. 78N-9418, was apprehended near R.P.F. post G.M.C. loaded with 45 bags of coal and another 47 bags of coal was also being taken away, where the petitioner a Head Constable was available near R.P.F. Office Gate along with Bachchi Lal Yadav, however, he did not make efforts to apprehend the anti-social elements and the tempo and failed to assist the officers in chasing the criminals as well as tempo and as a result of which one tempo with coals managed to escape from in front of R.P.F. Post. However, similar charges were served to all the four constables by Sri S. N. Singh, A.S.C. The charges are read as follows : "(i) Serious misconduct and neglect of duty in that Head Constable Rambir Mishra while he was on roznamcha duty from 2 hours to 4 hours on 25.1.1999 at G.M.C. post, did not make any efforts to apprehend the criminals and tempo No. U. P.-78N 9418 loaded with coal in front of R.P.F. post G.M.C. at 2-4 hours. (ii) He also failed to assist the Railway Protection Force Officers during chasing of criminals." Sri S. N. Singh, A.S.C., R.P.F. being head of the raiding party acted as disciplinary authority and conducted inquiry and passed the removal order dated 28.9.1999. Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.9.1999, the petitioner along with other three constables (alleged accused) preferred appeals, which was rejected by order dated 22.12.1999. Against the above order dated 22.12.1999, the revision of three other accused constables was allowed, whereas, the revision of petitioner was dismissed by the Director General, R.P.F. by its order dated 29.6.2001.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the revision of three other constables for the same charges was allowed on the ground that Sri S. N. Singh, A.S.C. being head of the raiding party and also reporting officer should not have acted as disciplinary authority and by virtue of the relief granted to other three constables, namely, Bachchi Lal, Girja Shankar Dubey and Satpal Singh, they were reinstated, whereas, for the same charges in similar circumstances, the petitioner's revision was dismissed, as such dismissal of petitioner's revision and affirmation by the appellate authority and rejection by the revisional authority are illegal and the petitioner has been singled out for imposition of penalty, which is shockingly disproportionate. It has been contended on behalf of respondents that the provisions of Rules 151.1, 152.2 and 153.1 and 2 of 'Rules, 1987' are relevant for the case of present petitioner. The Rules 151, 152 and 153 of 'Rules, 1987' are quoted as below : "151. Disciplinary Authority.-151.1. The disciplinary authority in respect of any enrolled member of the Force for the purpose of imposing a particular punishment or the passing of any disciplinary order shall be the authority specified in this behalf in Schedule III in whose administrative control the member is serving and shall include any authority superior to such authority. 151.2. The disciplinary authority, in the case of an enrolled member of the Force officiating in a higher rank, shall be determined with reference to the officiating post held by him at the time of taking action. 152. Authority to institute proceedings.-152.1. The appointing authority or any authority otherwise empowered by general or special order, may : (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any enrolled member ; or (b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any enrolled member of the Force on whom the disciplinary authority is competent to impose, under these rules, any of the punishments specified in Rules 148 and 149. 152.2 A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the minor punishments may institute disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of any of the major punishments notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent, under these rules, to impose any of the latter punishments. 153. Procedure for imposing major punishments.-153.1. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in rank shall be passed on any enrolled member of the Force (save as mentioned in Rule 161) without holding an inquiry, as far as may be in the manner provided hereinafter, in which he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. 153.2.1. Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an enrolled member of the Force, it may itself inquire into or appoint an Inquiry Officer higher in rank to the enrolled member charged but not below the rank of Inspector, or institute a court of inquiry to inquire into the truth thereof." ;