Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the Deputy Chief Security Officer dated 7-5-1975 rejecting the petitioner's appeal preferred against an order of the Security Officer by which he was dismissed from service. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under rule 44 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the rules, for gross neglect of duty and serious misconduct. It is stated in the charge sheet that while on duty at Patna Jn. from 00/00 hours on 24-7-70 he failed to prevent or detect theft of wheat bags from wagon No. R 12411 standing in the new yard within his beat area, which bags were recovered by SIBP Singh from the accused Ram Babu and his associates. Further, while giving evidence in the court of learned SRU/Patna Jn. on 13-1-1972 in the case State v. Ram Bubu under section 3 RP (U.P.) Act , he went hostile and deposed in favour of the accused.
(2.) In the explanation to the charge sheet the petitioner denied both the charges. It was stated by him that neither any theft occurred in his beat within his duty hours, nor he gave any different statement in court in favour of the accused. The petitioner also quoted in the explanation the views of O.C., K. P. F. and I. P. F. about the case. The Assistant Security Officer who was the disciplinary authority directed to hold an enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner and he recorded his order on 24-7-1972 as such : "After carefully going through the relevant records of the case file and the explanation to the charge sheet of the delinquent Rakshak I observe that none of the charges against the delinquent Rakshak is likely to be proved The report of SPI/DIR on the basis of which charges were framed does not indicate if the delinquent Rakshak's OC/KPF/DNR who enquired into the case, IPF/DNR who supervised the case, were examined before submission of the report. In view of this instead of ordering for an enquiry straightway decide the case at this stage and order that the charge sheet be filed and the delinquent Rakshak exonerated of the charges". Thereafter, the Security Officer reviewed the case and directed to hold an enquiry. There was an enquiry by an Inspector who submitted the report on 20-4-1970. There, the enquiring officer found that the charges as framed against the petitioner have been proved and he found him guilty of both the charges. Thereafter the Assistant Security Officer on considering the enquiry report provisionally came to the decision to reduce the pay of the petitioner by two stages for a period of two years and thereby issued a show cause notice dated 7-7-1973 directing the petitioner to show cause why the penalty of reduction to the lower stage at Rs. 80 from Rs. 85 in the time scale of pay Rs. 70-85 should not be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the said show-cause pointing out certain irregularities in the enquiry. The Assistant Security Officer after considering the representation upheld the provisional decision and ordered that the pay of the petitioner be reduced from Rs 75 to Rs. 73 for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The said order was given effect to from 8-8-1973. The Security Officer, Mughalsarai, again on its own motion reviewed the case and provisionally formed the opinion that the petitioner rendered himself unfit for retention in the force and he dismissed from service and thereby issued a show-cause notice dated 5-12-1973 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner made representation to the said show-cause notice dated 5-12-1973. The Security Officer, Mughalsarai, however, by his order dated 4-3-1974 dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from the date of service of the said notice upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal. But ultimately the petitioner's said appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Security Officer.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. Majumdar appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Security Officer's order, dated the 24th of April, 1972, which is annexure 'D' to the petition by which the said Officer in exercising powers under Rule 60(2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959, quashed the order passed by the Assistant Security Officer and directed to get an enquiry instituted according to the procedure prescribed under Rule 44 of the said Rules is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further contended that in the order of the Assistant Security Officer the petitioner was exonerated from the charges, neither any penalty was imposed nor any enquiry was directed to be started. According to Mr. Majumdar unless the punishment is imposed by the original authority, the revising authority acquires no jurisdiction under Rule 60 to remit, vary or enhance such punishment or order a fresh enquiry or to take further evidence. In the present case as no punishment has been imposed by the punishing authority, the provisions of rule 60 had no application and the Security Officer illegally assumed jurisdiction under the said Rule in directing an enquiry to these charges with respect to which the disciplinary authority exonerated him. In support of his contentions Mr. Majumdar relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, Union of India and others v. Shew Narayan Mahato, 1976 CWN 390 .;