- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri D. S. P. Singh Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Srivastava appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28-1-2000 removing the petitioner from service and the orders dated 3-8-2000 and 24-4-2001 dismissing the appeal and revision of the petitioner. The petitioner was working as constable in the Railway Protection Force and at the relevant time was posted at outpost Naini, Northern Railway, Allahabad. On 5-7-1999 the petitioner was on duty on the east of railway bridge at Yamuna river from 8. 00 Hours to 20. 00 Hours. During his duty hours petitioner left his duty and consumed liquor and thereafter misbehaved with Chaukidar Lalai and Keyman Jagannath who were also on duty on the bridge and tried to assault him. The petitioner absented with effect from 13. 30 hours and at about 15. 30 hours he assaulted the outsider namely Pooran Chandra Tripathi at station road, Naini and broke his scooter. Preliminary inquiry was held in which the petitioner was indicated. Disciplinary inquiry was initiated by serving charge- sheet on the petitioner dated 28-7-1999. The charge-sheet itself mentions the documents from serial Nos. 1 to 13 which were to be relied in the inquiry and the list of witnesses numbering eight were mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner participated in the inquiry.
(3.) THE inquiry proceedings started on 27th August, 1999. THE doctor who had medically examined the petitioner appeared and proved his medial report, which found the petitioner under intoxication during the duty hours. Pooran Chandra Tripathi one of the witnesses appeared who was also cross examined by the petitioner. Other witnesses Sita Ram Tripathi, L. P. Singh and Satish Kumar appeared. After close of evidence of the department the Enquiry Officer on 27-8-1999 asked the petitioner that the evidence of department is complete and if the petitioner has to give any defence witness he may give their names and designation. He was asked to submit his defence till 19-9-1999. On 9-10-1999 a written application was given in which the petitioner raised grievance that he was not given documents and the statements of the witnesses were not exhibited. Reference of Rule 153. 13 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 was also made. In the application dated 9-10-1999 itself on the back side there are four questions and answers given by the petitioner to them. THE first question is as to whether before completion of the inquiry petitioner made any request for any document, the answer given by the petitioner was "no". THE petitioner was asked as to whether during inquiry he has given any representation which was also replied in negative. One of the questions was also that whether during the examination of witnesses petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine. THE answer was specifically given that the opportunity was given for cross-examination. THE inquiry officer after completing the inquiry submitted the report holding the charges proved against the petitioner. On the basis of inquiry report the dismissal order was passed against which appeal was filed which too, has been rejected. Sri D. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders contended that in the inquiry there is violation of Rule 153. 12 and 153. 13 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. Sri D. S. P. Singh, further contended that the punishment awarded against the petitioner is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled. He contended that the dismissal in the facts of the present case was wholly disproportionate to the allegations. Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced original record pertaining to the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. Sri Srivastava submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity including the opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. He further contended that the petitioner actually cross-examined some of the witnesses. He further contended that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner which enlisted the documents referred to in the charge-sheet and at no point of time the petitioner prayed for copy of any document. Sri Srivastava further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the inquiry by not exhibiting the documents. He further submitted that the petitioner himself in the inquiry has admitted the charges and stated that he does not pray for any copy of document.;