Sanjeet Kumar aged about 44 years, son of Uday Sharma, resident of Rampur Charui v. 1. Union of India 2. Railway Protection Force through its General Manager, East Central
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3734 of 2023 Sanjeet Kumar aged about 44 years, son of Uday Sharma, resident of Rampur Charui, Modanganj, P.O-Modanganj P.S- Ghosi, District- Jehanbad, Bihar, presently posted at Nimiaghat, presently residing at R.P.F Post, Gomoh, P.O -Gomoh, P.S- Hariharpur, District- Dhanbad. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India 2. Railway Protection Force through its General Manager, East Central Railway, having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. - Hajipur, District - Vaishali (Bihar). 3. I.G., Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway, having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S.- Hajipur, District - Vaishali (Bihar). 4. D.I.G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway, having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. Hajipur, District - Vaishali (Bihar). 5. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection, East Central Railway, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. - Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand). 6. Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection, East Central Railway, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. - Dhanbad, District … Respondents - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp.- UOI
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. SGI : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC --- 12/14.03.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “That the petitioner by way of the instant writ petition prays for setting aside the entire enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner on various charges including the chargesheet issued to him vide letter no. C-PF/DHN/01(05)/153/2023/770 dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railways, Dhanbad -cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Rule- 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules and further be pleased to set aside the departmental proceeding which is being carried out in a pre- determined notion against the petitioner as is apparent from the charge sheet itself.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a point of jurisdiction is involved in the present case. The learned counsel has submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appointing authority of the petitioner is respondent no. 5 and the charge-sheet has 2 been issued by an incompetent authority i.e. by the respondent no. 6, who at the relevant point of time, was working on ad-hoc basis. In order to submit that the incumbent of respondent no. 6 was working on ad-hoc basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a notification annexed with the rejoinder which is of the year 2017. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1987) to submit that the procedure for imposing major punishments has been prescribed and submit that the procedure for imposition of major punishment can be initiated by the disciplinary authority who could be the respondent no. 5, but not respondent no. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Rule 25 of the Rules of 1987 to submit that the general powers and responsibilities of superior officers have been provided under Rule 25 which, in turn, refers to Schedule II to Schedule IV. The learned counsel has also referred to Rule 151 which deals with the “Disciplinary Authority”. Rule 152 deals with the “Authority to institute proceedings”. He has also referred to Rule 152.1 of the said Rules. He submits that the charge-sheet does not conform to the provisions of Rule 151, 152.1 and 153 read with schedule II and schedule III of the aforesaid Rules. 6. The learned counsel, while referring to the schedule III, has submitted that the power of dismissal cannot be exercised by the Assistant Security Commissioner/Assistant Commandant of RPSF/Adjutant rather it can be passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner/ Security Commissioner/Commanding Officer/Senior Security Commissioner. The learned counsel has also referred to Schedule II to submit that the authority of respondent no. 6 has no power of appointment and therefore, respondent no. 6 is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority nor any order of dismissal can be passed by the respondent no. 6. 7. However, during the course of argument, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a situation would arise where a proceeding for major punishment has been instituted, but it ultimately culminates in passing of the minor punishment. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment 3 passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in “Satish Vs. Union of India” in Case No. C/SCA/7466/2019 [ equivalent citation 2020 SCC Online Gujarat 737] to submit that while dealing with Schedule III, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that it was apparent from the Rules mandated for proceedings that the disciplinary enquiries are to be initiated by the disciplinary authority only. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that there are other circulars and rules of the Railway Board which would indicate that the respondent no. 6 was not having the necessary jurisdiction to issue the charge-sheet to the petitioner. He has also submitted that those rules and circulars of the Railway Board are to be read with the aforesaid Rules of 1987. 9. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, has referred to Rule 152.2 of the Rules of 1987 to submit that a disciplinary authority competent under the Rules to impose any of the minor punishments may institute disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of any of the major punishments notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under the Rules to impose any of the major punishments. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents has referred to the Schedule to submit that the minor punishments and also reduction in rank or grade, can be passed by the authority of respondent no.6. 10. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents has referred to the counter affidavit particularly paragraph no. 54 of the same. The learned counsel has also submitted that initiation of disciplinary proceedings is different from passing of the final order. The proceedings under major punishment may culminate into passing of a minor penalty and the provision of Rule 152.2 is peculiar to the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and the authority of respondent no. 6 is backed by the Rules of 1987. 11. The learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner wants to rely upon further provisions of the Rules of Railway Board or any circular, these aspects of the matter can be appreciated by the authority who is conducting the enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. 4 12. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the petitioner is already participating in the ongoing enquiry proceedings but by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, no final order has been passed. 13. The learned counsel submits that the point regarding the jurisdiction of respondent no. 6 to issue the charge-sheet would require consideration of various circulars etc. which can be placed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that there is a dispute in connection with the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 6 in the matter of issuance of charge-sheet. This Court also finds that the petitioner is not only relying upon the aforesaid Rules of 1987, but also relying upon certain other Rules and circulars framed by Railway Board which may be applicable upon the petitioner. 15. In such circumstances, this court finds that the point of jurisdiction of respondent no. 6 is itself a mixed question of fact and law and the same does not relate only to interpretation of the rules of 1987 and therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to decide the point of jurisdiction. The fact also remains that the petitioner is participating in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents and the proceedings has not yet concluded. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the point regarding jurisdiction can certainly be raised before the respondents even at this stage. Therefore, while not deciding the issue of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage of the proceedings, it is left open to the petitioner to raise the point of jurisdiction along with the supporting circulars, rules, etc. which the petitioner may rely upon before the enquiry officer and also the disciplinary authority, within a period of three weeks from today. 17. Upon raising such issue, the concerned authority shall pass an order on the point of jurisdiction also while passing the final order in the disciplinary proceedings. 18. The matter has remained pending by virtue of the interim orders passed by this court and accordingly, the respondents are directed to 5 expedite the proceedings and conclude the same preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 19. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also raised a grievance with regard to non-furnishing of certain documents. He has submitted that a list of documents has been furnished but the annexures to the list has not been given to the petitioner. 20. In view of the aforesaid submissions at this stage, it is observed that if the petitioner has not been given the required documents, the same be also furnished to the petitioner within a period of 15 days upon furnishing a list of such documents required by the petitioner
Decision
from the respondents. 21. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)