Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -This petition was filed by late Raj Dhari Singh. During the pendency of the writ petition, he died and was substituted by his legal heirs and representatives. The present petitioners are sons of late Raj Dhari Singh.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that late Raj Dhari Singh was appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force on 10.9.1957. While he was member of the Railway Protection Force at Allahabad, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 3.3.1975. THE charge levelled against him was that he was found absent from duty in beat Nos. 16 to 18 from 23.11.1974 to 25.11.1974. He was served with another charge-sheet dated 21.10.1975. This time he was found absent from duty on 19.7.1975. Again, he was served with the charge-sheet dated 22.5.1976 on the allegation that he was absent from duty from 31.1.1976 to 11.2.1976. After conclusion of departmental proceedings, late Raj Dhari Singh was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 3.9.1976. THE statutory appeal of the petitioner was also rejected vide impugned order dated 21.11.1979. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, late Raj Dhari Singh invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of this writ petition. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that late Raj Dhari Singh was dismissed from service without having been heard. He urged that the order of dismissal was passed by the respondent No. 3 who was not empowered to pass such order.
(3.) PER contra, standing counsel for the Union of India contended that the Assistant Security Officer was quite competent to pass dismissal order as per the provisions of Railway Protection Force, 1987. He urged that late Raj Dhari Singh was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself but he deliberately did not co operate in the disciplinary proceedings. He being a member of disciplined force could not be expected to remain absent on authorized leave and the order of dismissal was just, apt and proper. After hearing counsels for the parties and perusal of record, it is evident that late Raj Dhari Singh was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing but he tried to avoid hearing on one ground or the other. The findings of facts recorded by the disciplinary and appellate authorities clearly establish that he was not a fit person to be retained in the disciplined force. In view of settled principle of law laid down in B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 (LandS) 80, High Court cannot interfere with the findings of disciplinary authority based on evidence by reappreciating the evidence.;