SRI SARVESH SINGH Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders for the removal of the petitioner from service, passed by the Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Danapur which have been annexed and marked as Annexures-1 and 2 to the present application. Annexure-2 is the Divisional Order No. 1913/72 dated 16-9-72 passed by the Assistant Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Danapur on 15-9-72 by which he confirmed his tentative decision of removing the petitioner from service. Annexure-1 is the order communicated to the petitioner in pursuance of the order contained in Annexure-2.

(2.) The petitioner was a Sainik in the Railway Protection Force constituted under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. Prior to this he was employed as Watchman in the Watch and Ward Department of the Eastern Railway since 1954. The Watch and Ward Wing of the Eastern Railway having been abolished, the petitioner was appointed afresh in the Railway Protection Force under the hand and seal of the Assistant Security Officer, Danapur. It appears that the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding for misconduct on two counts which have been set out in the statement of charges (Annexure-4). The substance of the accusation against the petitioner was firstly that on 3-1-72, at about 22. 50 hours, he was found committing pilferage of sugar from a wagon along with SR Sheikh Md. Kasim. On being challenged Sheikh Md. Kasim fled away, but the petitioner remained standing at the point of pilferage and 10 Kg. of sugar in a bundle was found lying there which was seized by A.S.I. Sita Ram Singh. Secondly, it was alleged that while the seized sugar was being taken to the RPF Post, the petitioner and Sheikh Md. Kasim appeared and requested A.S.I. Sita Ram Singh and HR K.C. Dey to excuse him, but they did not condescend. The petitioner then tried to snatch away the bundle of sugar from the custody of HR K. C. Dey. A.S.I. Sita Ram Singh intervened and thereupon the petitioner was alleged to have assaulted him by Lathi on the forehead and other places of his body. The charges were enquired into by an Inspector of Railway Protection Force who, by his report dated 18-7-72 held the petitioner guilty on both the counts. The petitioner has only annexed an extract of the inquiry report (Annexure-4/1). The respondents, however, have annexed as Annexure-D the complete findings of the proceeding in the inquiry under Rule 44. The inquiry having gone against the petitioner, he was asked by the Assistant Security Officer by Annexure-4/2 to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The Assistant Security Officer was not impressed with the cause shown by the petitioner and thus passed the Impugned orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2 directing removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Security Officer, Moghalsarai, which was dismissed by order dated 22-12-72 (Annexure-3). The revision by the petitioner before the Chief Security Officer met a similar fate which was dismissed by the Chief Security Officer by order dated 10-5-73. A copy of the same had been duly received by the petitioner in usual course. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this Court for quashing the order of his in removal from service contained in Annexures-1 and 2. The petitioner has in not prayed for quashing Annexures-3 and B, the order passed on appeal and revision as it should have been done since it is well known that an order - passed by a Court or a Tribunal merges in the orders passed in appeal or revision. I shall not, however, hold it against the petitioner and shall not throw out this application on this preliminary point, but shall proceed to consider whether the petitioner's removal from service was justified and whether Annexures 1 and 2 are fit to be quashed.

(3.) The first ground on which learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order is that the inquiry was in derogation of the procedure prescribed for departmental proceedings by the Railway Protection Force Regulation 21 (Chapter XVI) of 1966. Chapter XVI of the Railway Protection Force Regulations, 1966 lays down the rules in regard to matters of discipline of, and appeal by, members of the Railway Protection Force. Paragraph 20 provides the procedure for imposition of major penalties set out in paragraph 11 of the same Chapter. Paragraph 20(iii) lays down that the party charged will be required to submit a written statement of his defence within a maximum period of 14 days, and to furnish the names of the members of the Force, if any, with whose assistance he wishes to present his case in the enquiry. Paragraph 21 lays down the procedure for departmental inquiry and provides that a departmental inquiry whether conducted by the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiring Authority shall be processed in the manner stated therein. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Ghose, counsel, for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look at paragraph 21(1) to 21 (vi) which are quoted herein-below:-