PRACHIN KUMAR MALLICK Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Prachin Kumar Mallick
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Click here to view full judgement.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. -
(1.):- The petitioner was proceeded against under Rule 15 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1987. The proceeding was initiated for imposition of minor penalty. The charges were levelled by memo dated May 1, 1998. They were as follows:
"Statement of charge U/R 158 and RPF Rule in 1987
Sri P.K. Mallick, IPF/SNR.
Sri P.K. Mallick IPF/SNR is hereby charge sheeted for gross negligence and mismanagement of his Post in that (i) on 14.4.98 at 22/30 hrs. Train No. EC 3928/TGH Coal load arrived on line No. (2) at Dn. Sub-urban line/Titagarh and while waiting for Signal, Criminal numbering 10/15 unloaded Coal from weapons, due to which the Private Security Escort Party of the train had to open fire, resulting in death of one Criminal and injury to another as per GRP/DDJ case No. 34/98 dated 11/4/98 and at that point, only one Solitary RPF Constable was deployed on duty with lathi, which had served neither any purpose nor was effective.
(b) During the study of RPF Staff position at SNR by ASC/KPA on 30.4.98 it was found by ASC/KPA that the was serious Mismanagement of Manpower resulting in non-availability of the men adequately for performing normal Shift duties which in turn affects the working of the Post. Hence the Charge.
Sr. SC/RPF/SDAH.' The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated May 23, 1998. He disputed the correctness of the allegations. He stated in his reply that as a subordinate officer under control of the Assistant Security Commissioner, he was managing the manpower according to the directions, suggestion and orders given by his said superior officer, and he was discharging his duties diligently and to the best of his abilities.
(2.)Considering the reply, the disciplinary authority i.e., the Senior Security Commissioner imposed the penalty of withholding petitioner's next increments for a period of two years with non- cumulative effect. The disciplinary authority mainly relied on the report dated April 30, 1998 submitted by the Assistant Security Commissioner
(3.)Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. Amongst other contentions, in the appeal, the petitioner specifically contended that the disciplinary authority relied on the report of the Assistant Security Commissioner, although, in spite of his specific demand for a copy thereof, he was not supplied with the same. The petitioner contended that the punishment was imposed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as he had been denied, virtually, every opportunity to defend himself.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.