High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4673/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA By means of this writ petition filed in 2004 (29.6.2004), the petitioner has pra yed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service of Railway Pr otection Force (RPF), NF Railway. The petitioner was removed from service by ord er dated 12.9.1986 (Annexure-F) pursuant to a departmental proceeding in respect of the following charges:
Legal Reasoning
(cid:28)Charge No. I. Shri Lohit Ch. Deka and Lakhindar Das constable/RPF were deputed at Mujnai stati on with effect from 08.02.86 for yard patrolling, guarding of dropped loads, sig nals materials between Up and Down Signal of Mujnai Station. Up Guwahati Spl. wa s dropped at Mujnai on 23.2.86. On 26.2.86 wagon No. WRC 18594 containing Vanasp ati attached to the said train was victimized by the criminals by tempering her seals, which they failed to detect or prevent during their duty period. Charge No. II They have made some superfluous remarks on the records of the train guard in res pect of the said wagon No. WRC 18594 with some motive. Statement of allegations on the basis of which charges were framed against Sri L ohit Ch. Deka-II Con/RPF/NMZ (name, degn. of the member of the Force. (cid:29) Along with the memorandum of charges, statement of allegation in respect of both the charges was also furnished, which reads as follows: (cid:28)ALLEGATIONS REGARDING CHARGE I & II. Constable/RPF Shri Lohit Ch. Deka-II and Lakhindra Das were deputed at Mujnai St ation with effect from 8.2.86 under Command certificate No. 1160/3 dated 8.2.86 by Inspector/RPF/NMZ. Both the constable were detailed for the yard patrolling, guarding of dropped loads, signal material etc. between Up and Down Home Signal of Mujnai station stopped. UP. Guwahati Spl. was dropped at Mujnai High Yard on 23.2.86 at 2/17 Hrs. the dr opped loads were checked and compared with the TRC by the unduty constable made some superfluous remarks in regard to Wagon No. WRC 18594 ex. Delhi Lahorigate t o Dimapur. All sides leaky and contents dropping with the help of different ink and hand writing. The loads mate Dispatched on 26.2.86 at 21/00 hrs. On the night of 26/27.2.86 on source information OC/Msdarithat P.S. conducted a raid at Sisubari Village near about Kujnai Railway Station recovered 171 tins Va naspati. It is suspected that the properties to recovered were removed from stab led loads at Mujani to which one wagon No. WRC-18594 was containing Vanaspati. T he said Wagon was intercepted at NCC/and on check recoiled 374 tins Vanaspati ag ainst 576 tins or 202 tins Vanaspati short. On 3.3.86 at NCC contents of wagon No. 18594 having S/said DILHI LAHORI GATE sea l found tempered without original tape and company seal and N/side original DELH I LAHORI F+GATE seal intact and company seal was provided on the back side of th e same C.L. original seal tape cut and hanging on one ring but P/seal of CPJ was provided on C.L. with jute twine was checked and found 374 tins Vanaspati again st 576 tins or 202 tins Vanaspati found short as per C/IQ and paste on lavel. Th e said consignment was booked under Railway Receipt No. 621326 dated 6.2.86 cons ignor HVIC Ltd. The tins of Vanaspati so recovered by the police at Sishubari ne ar Mujnai Railway Station parity between the shortage reported from the wagon No . 18594 received at NCC and Boro the same stencil mark of the contents of wagon No. 18594. Thus the wagon No. WRC 18594 was victimized by the criminals at Mujnai by temper ing her sear and which they failed to detect and prevent and managed to be dispa tched during their duty hours. (cid:29) Although, the petitioner duly received the chargesheet, he did not furnish any r eply. He also did not participate in the enquiry proceeding, notice in respect o f which was duly received by him. In such a situation, the enquiry had to procee d exparte. The Enquiry Officer having held the charges leveled against the petit ioner to have been established, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned o rder dated 12.9.1986 of removal from service. After about one year of such remov al from service, the petitioner preferred the Annexure-G appeal dated 7.7.1987, which was also dismissed by order dated 12.1.1988. After the aforesaid development, the petitioner did nothing in the matter for lo ng 18 years and thereafter filed the instant writ petition placing reliance on t he judgment dated 16.3.2001 passed in NGR Case No. 135/1987, which was registere d under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (UP) Act. The judgment was passed by the learned SDJM, Alipurduar. According to the petitioner, he having been acquitted in the criminal case, the respondents are bound to reinstate him in service setting aside the impugned ord er of removal from service, which was passed way back in 1986. I have heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. D as, representing the Railways. The petitioner was charged with gross indiscipline and misconduct as he failed t o discharge his duties and functions as required as a member of a disciplined Fo rce like RPF. Although reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided, he ha d chosen not to respond to the proceeding. In the writ petition, there is no den ial of receipt of chargesheet, notice of enquiry etc., but, only a vague stateme nt has been made in paragraph -7 that due to ailments, he could not take step in the matter. However, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had infor med about his purported illness to the Enquiry Officer. It is only after the afo resaid acquittal in the criminal case and that too with a further delay of three years, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition taking the plea of not re
Decision
sponding to the enquiry proceeding due to illness. In the writ petition, there is no plea of any procedural irregularity in conduct ing the enquiry. The basic ground, on which, the writ petition was filed is the judgment in the criminal case referred to above. Apart from the fact that the principle involved in establishing the charges in a departmental proceeding vis-à-vis the criminal proceeding are distinctly differ ent, there is also no explanation of delay in filing the writ petition. While in a criminal case, the charges will have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt, but in respect of charges in a departmental proceeding, it is the prepond erance of probability. That apart, on perusal of the materials on record, it app ears that the charge in the disciplinary proceeding was different than that of t he charge in the criminal proceeding. The petitioner being a member of disciplin ed force like RPF was bound to maintain absolute integrity in discharging his du ties, but instead his conduct incurred loss to the Railways. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and according ly, it is dismissed.