Arun Kumar Mitra, J. - (1.) :- The writ petition was moved with the following prayers: (A) For the issue of writ of/ or in the nature of mandamus. (i) Commanding Respondents and each one of them to act and to proceed in. accordance with law, and (ii) Commanding respondents to recall, rescind and/or to forbear for giving effect or further effect to the purported chargesheet dated 04.12.1991 and the purported second show-cause notice dated 29.12.1992 as contained in annexure 'B' and 'J' herein. (iii) For Declaration Rule 143(2) and 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 ultra vires and/or null and void. (B) For the issue of a writ of the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents and each of them to transmit and certify in this Hon'ble Court all records and proceedings relating to the purported charge-sheet dated 4.12.1991 and purported second show-cause notice dated 29.12.1992 as contained in Annexure 'B' & 'J' herein for being not set aside and/or quashed by this Hon'ble Court. (C) For the issue of the writ of/or in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents and each of them from taking any step or any further steps in respect of the said purported charge-sheet dated 04.12.1992 and purported second show-cause notice dated 29.12.1992 as contained in Annexures 'B' and 'J' herein. (D) For the issue of a Rule N.I.S.I. and for making the said rule in the event the respondent making an insufficient and/or false return to this rule. Before dealing with the matter it is recorded that when the instant writ petition was moved, along with this writ petition, another writ petition being C.O. No. 1806 (W) of 1993 was moved by one Kashi Nath Mishra and his Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee (as His Lordship then was) directed both the matters to be heard analogously. But at the time of hearing Mr. Achin Kr. Majumder, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has instruction not to proceed with the matter being C.O. No. 1806 (W) of 1993 (Kashi Nath Mishra v. Union of India) and accordingly the said writ petition being C.O. No. 1806 (W) of 1993 was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the instant writ petition the case as has been made out by the writ petitioner is inter alia as follows.
(2.) The petitioner has been appointed as constable of railway protection force of South Eastern Railway and at present he is posted at RPF Post "I" Company, Gardenreach, Calcutta. According to the petitioner, his service records are clean and unblemished. He has been rewarded by his superior authority for his sincerity and honesty. Secondly, the petitioner was served with an order of suspension dated 9.10.1991 issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, S.E. Railway, Shalimar and the said order has been made Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 4.12.1993 after expiry of one month from the date of suspension. The allegation which was levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner while on duty on 10.9.1991 demanded and accepted Rs. 9/- from Sri Rajen Routh. Charge-sheet dated 4.12.1991 has been made Annexure '13'. According to the petitioner, the order of suspension dated 9.10.1991 has become infructuous and the same cannot be sustainable in law in view of second proviso of Rule 135 of R.P.F. Rules, 1987 as the Disciplinary Authority failed to furnish the petitioner with the said charge- sheet within one month from the date of suspension. The petitioner states that in that view of the matter the order of suspension stood revoked. Accordingly, the authority revoked the order of suspension w.e.f. 1.5.1992. Copy of the same has been made Annexure 'C' to the writ petition. Through a letter dated 4.12.1991 the petitioner was intimated that an enquiry under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules will be conducted against the petitioner. A copy of the said order dated 4.12.1991 has been made Annexure 'D' to the writ petition. Through a letter, the petitioner prayed for time from the Enquiry Officer to prepare his reply. The petitioner through the said letter prayed for a copy of O/C . R.P.F., G.R.C's Prelimianry Enquiry Report. This letter of the petitioner was received by office on 7.12.1991 has been made Annexure 'E' to the writ petition.
(3.) The petitioner also made a representation to the Enquiry Officer on 13.12.1991 for allowing him to engage Sri G.D. Sarkar, Inspector, R.P.F. Shalimar to act as his defence Counsel and the petitioner along with his representation also annexed a copy of the consent letter of said G.D. Sarkar who was dealing to act as a defence Counsel for the petitioner in the said enquiry proceeding. The petitioner has annexed the representation along with the consent letter and has made those two documents as Annexures 'F' and 'F-1' to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner by his letter dated 17.1.1992 that as the Director General, R.P.F. New Delhi has decided to file an appeal against the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 4.12.1991 the petitioner would not be allowed to engage said G.D. Sarkar, Inspector, Shalimar as his defence Counsel. The Enquiry Officer also directed the petitioner to engage a member of the force of or below the rank of Sub-Inspector within the said Shalimar Division as his 'friend' as per Rule 153 .8 of RPF Rules, 1987 and the prayer of the petitioner to defend his case in the said enquiry proceeding with the help of Inspector, G.D. Sarkar was turned down. The petitioner has annexed the order of the Enquiry Officer dated 17.1.1992 refusing the prayer of the petitioner to engage Sri G.D. Sarkar, Inspector, as his defence Counsel as Annexure 'G' to the writ petition. The petitioner alleges in the writ petition that Rule 153.8 has been struck down as ultra vires by this High Court in C.O. No. 6694 (W) of 1991 (T.P. Chowdhury v. Union of India), by the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Justice Manoranjan Mallick (as His Lordship then was) and in spite of the said fact the petitioner has been directed to engage any Officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector as per the provisions of Rule 153.8 of the said RPF Rules 1987. The petitioner submitted in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the said Rule 153.8 of Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 is also contrary to the principles of natural justice as the right of counsel to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses has been taken away by invoking the said provisions of Rule 153.8 of the said Rules. The petitioner also submitted in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that in spite of his representation dated 7.12.1991 the respondent was not served with any copy of preliminary enquiry report. The petitioner further submitted that it would appear from the letter dated 17.1.1992 passed by the Enquiry Officer that charges were framed on the basis of the said preliminary enquiry report, but, he was not supplied with the copy of the said preliminary report. The petitioner apprehended that either the Enquiry Officer was not acquainted with the preliminary report or he purposely suppressed the same from the petitioner and did not supply him before holding enquiry and this is contrary to the principles of natural justice.;