Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of removal dated 31.8.1991 passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad and the order dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, Head Quarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi. The petitioner was working as constable in Railway Protection Force. On 20.4.1990 petitioner alongwith another constable was entrusted duty to go alongwith cash. Between Etawah to Bharthana. When the petitioner along with other constable Shri R.G. Sharma, PW 1, clerk Vinod Narain Dubey, trolley men Jhallu, Hakimsingh, Mansingh and Bindeswari were going on certain currency notes were found lying on the railway track. On the instructions of Shri R.C. Sharma P.W. 1, the trolley men had collected the currency notes amounting to Rs. 3150/-. The details of the notes were noted down in duplicate copy. The petitioner and other constable pressurised the trolley men to give the money along with duplicate list to them. The railway staff on the pressurisation of the petitioner the said money along with duplicate list was given to the petitioner. The petitioner and other constable returned on the same day but but they did not make any reference of the money which was taken by them in the Roznamcha nor made any effort to deposit the money with the railway. When the amount so taken by the petitioner was not deposited the railway staff made complaint to the, higher authorities. The higher authorities enquired from the petitioner and when the petitioner was being enquired about the said amount, he misbehaved with the I.P.F./E.T.W. and subsequently on 22.4.1990 he deposited the amount in the railway booking office. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 were initiated. ; A charge memo was given giving the details of the imputations and the allegation. The copy of the charge sheet has been filed as Annexure- IA to the writ petition. The charge-sheet mentions four documents which were to be relied in the enquiry and the names of nine persons as witnesses who were proposed to be examined on behalf of the department. To the Chief Security Officer, the petitioner made request for copy of certain documents. The Chief Security Officer, permitted the petitioner to inspect the document ,which was so done. During the enquiry the petitioner again made request for copy of documents which documents were made available to the petitioner on 6.3.1991 by the Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry proceedings the petitioner was also directed by the Enquiry Officer on 20.11.1990 to give name of his defence friend along with his acceptance within a week. Again on 11.2.1991 the Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to give the name of defence friend along with consent letter but inspite of the aforesaid two opportunities no name of defence friend was suggested. In the disciplinary enquiry the witnesses appeared on behalf of the department for proving the charge. The petitioner did not file any reply to the charge sheet and in the enquiry also he made repeated efforts for delaying the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding the charge No. 1 and 2 proved against the petitioner vide his letter dated 29.6.1991. After receiving the enquiry report the petitioner was informed about the enquiry report and asked to submit his reply. The petitioner choose not to submit reply even thereafter on merit but raised certain procedural lacuna in the conduct of the enquiry. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.3.1991 directed removal of the petitioner from service against which petitioner filed an appeal which appeal, too, has been rejected by the appellate authority vide its order dated 18.4.2001. This writ petition has been filed challenging the removal order as well as the appellate order.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Satish Dwivedi challenging the order contended that there has been violation of Rule 153.8 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 since the petitioner was not given opportunity to have his defence assistant due to which the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated. Sri Dwivedi further contended that the petitioner was not supplied documents which have been asked by the petitioner which resulted in breach of principle of natural justice vitiating the entire enquiry.;