- (1.) There are two aspects to this petition: the first being a grievance that the petitioner remains suspended from the Railway Protection Force though the charge was not furnished to him within a period of thirty days from the date of suspension; and, that the charge -sheet dated September 8, 2015 refers to a preliminary inquiry report but does not cite the author of the report and others named in the report as relevant witnesses.
(2.) The Union says that following the incident of the petitioner attacking a colleague with a country -made revolver, a preliminary inquiry was directed to be conducted and the petitioner was placed on suspension with effect from March 17, 2014. The Union says that the petitioner dodged the preliminary inquiry and stayed away without any reason for the period of nearly a year. The Union suggests that it is inconceivable that the petitioner actively delays the preliminary inquiry and the consequent issuance of the charge -sheet, but the petitioner will rush to court to complain of the extended period of suspension which was a result of the petitioner's antics.
(3.) The petitioner, however, refers to Rules 117 and 141 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 to suggest that the Railway Rules would apply in matters not specifically provided for by the said Rules of 1987. According to the petitioner, the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1968 require a review of a suspension after 90 days and for enhanced subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the regular salary upon the period of suspension being extended. The petitioner claims that if the matter is not reviewed within 90 days of the suspension, the order of suspension would be deemed to have been revoked.;