J.C. Verma, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who were initially working as Sub- Inspectors Gr. II in the Railway Protection Force, were appointed on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr. I and thereafter further promoted as Prosecuting Inspector Gr. II and to Gr. I and are continuing or the same post. The petitioners pray in the present writ petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to provide for an independent and separate organisation and structure of the Prosecution branch of Railway Protection Force (hereinafter called 'the R.P.E') providing, inter alia, for appointment, channel of promotion, disciplinary control, grant of leave, pay etc. to the members of the R.P.F. with a further direction that selection and appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Public Prosecutor Gr. II, Public Prosecutor Gr. I up to highest post be made directly from amongst persons having atleast minimum qualifications of Law and no appointment on this post be made from amongst Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Security Commissioner (Prosecution) and other ranks of executive branch.
(2.) It is stated that under Section 492(1) Cr.P.C. the Central Government appointed officers of R.P.F., who are employed in the prosecution unit as Public Prosecutors, for prosecuting the cases under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and they are designated as Public Prosecutors. A fresh notification was issued on 1.4.1974 by the Central Government in this regard, copy of which is attached as Annex. R.I. It is submitted that the entire supervision and control of the prosecution wing in the R.P.F. is under the executive branch of the RPF. The petitioners are members of the RPF as defined in Section 2 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. The Parliament had enacted the law in the year 1957 for providing for the constitution and regularisation of the Force in Railway Protection Force for the better protection and security of the railway property, namely, the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1957'), which had come into force on 1.9.1959. The rules were also framed thereunder. Certain Regulations were also framed along with the Standing Orders in the year 1967. The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was passed and was enforced in the year 1968 and a prosecution branch was established by the Railway Board for the proper working of the Act and the Rules. Under Rule 16 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, three branches have been established i.e. executive, prosecution and fire service branch. The duties of the prosecution branch were to render legal opinion and to conduct and prosecute the cases registered and investigated under Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and Railway Act, in the courts. The duties of the prosecutors have been enumerated in 'Schedule A appended to the writ petition which relate to rendering of legal assistance to the superior officers, to assist the members of the force and to guide them in their practical legal difficulties, to scrutinise the cases, to prepare case briefs, to conduct the cases in the court and to represent the railways, to render legal opinion to the superior officers, to prepare acquittal report, to supervise and distribute the work of officers and members of the force attached to his office or the courts and working under him, to function as a link between the court and the investigating staff etc. All the three branches were under the control of same officers in regard to appointment, confirmation, promotion, resignation, dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement etc. The highest hierarchy in the executive is Director General, an I.P.S. Officer and the other channel of executive officers are Chief Security Commissioner-cum- Inspector General RPF (50% IPS officers and 50% departmental officers), Dy. Chief Security Commissioner, Divisional Security Commissioner and Assistant Security Commissioner. By the Amendment Act of 1985, the affair of the administration was placed under the control of Inspector General and Additional Inspector General and Dy. Inspector General of the Force. Under Rule 18 of the Rules 1987 there was a provision of prosecution branch which provided that the prosecution branch on each zonal railway shall have a separate cadre of Inspectors and Sub- Inspectors who are appointed as Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors respectively and the other members of the branch shall be drawn from the executive branch. The Chief Security Commissioner could attach enrolled members of the Force working in the prosecution branch with the divisions. The relevant Rule 1.8 with its sub-clauses is reproduced as under: "18. Prosecution Branch: 18.1. The prosecution branch on each zonal railway shall be a separate cadre of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors who are appointed as Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors respectively. 18.2. Other members of the branch shall he drawn from Executive branch where they shall retain their respective seniority of their parent cadre while posted in this branch. 18.3. The Chief Security Commissioner may attach enrolled members of the Force working in the Prosecution branch with the divisions. Control over the staff shall be shared functionally between the division and the Security Commissariat as may be ordered by the Chief Security Commissioner.'
(3.) Under a circular issued by the Railway Board on 2.7.1977, attached as Scheduled B, the control of the prosecution branch had been vested in the hands of executive. As a matter of fact, Rules 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 132 and 133 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1987 provide the total control of the prosecution branch in the hands of the executive.;