The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.5704 of 2025 Manas Kumar Sahu ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Pramod Kishore Chand -versus- Union Of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – P.K.Parhi, D.S.G.I. along with Santosh Kumar Samantray, C.G.C.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 24.02.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned D.S.G.I. along with learned C.G.C. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.02.2025 under Annexue-13 passed by Chief Security Commissioner/RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar whereby a punishment was imposed on the Petitioner reducing his rank from Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect. Further, the pay scale of the Petitioner has also been reduced. Page 1 of 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner who is working as an Inspector in the Railway Police Force has approached this Court by challenging the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority thereby imposing punishment on the Petitioner. He further contended that while working as such on 06.06.2024, a show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted his reply on 13.06.2024. Thereafter, the order under Annexue-13 was passed by imposing major punishment on the Petitioner as the Petitioner was found guilty in the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him. He further contended that as per the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1957, the Disciplinary Authority of the present Petitioner is the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar whereas the order under Annexure-13 has been passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. In such view of the matter, it was contended that the final order in the Disciplinary Proceeding should have been passed by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. However, the speaking order dated 08.02.2025 under Annexure-13 has been passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar who happens to be the Appellate Authority of the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority has exercised the power of the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly he has passed the final order in the Disciplinary Proceeding. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority as the Appellate Authority himself has passed the order in the Disciplinary Page 2 of 5. Proceeding. 5. Mr. Parhi, learned D.S.G.I. on the other hand contended that although the order has been passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar on 08.02.2025 under Annexure-13. However, he has specifically mentioned in the said order that the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar is the Appellate Authority. In the aforesaid context, learned D.S.G.I. drawing attention of this Court to the provision contained in Rule- 212 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 contended that an enrolled member may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the punishments specified in rules 148 and 149 of the RPF Rules, 1987 to the authority immediately superior to the authority imposing the punishment. In such view of the matter, learned D.S.G.I. contended that there is no bar to the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar passing an order of imposing punishment on the Petitioner. He further contended that since the order has been passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, the appeal would lie to the next higher authority i.e. the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar as has been provide under Rule-212 of the RPF Rules, 1987. In such view of the matter, learned D.G.S.I. further contended that since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, the present writ application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same should be dismissed at the threshold. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Page 3 of 5. counsels, further taking note of the pleadings as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court finds that the grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that since the order in the present case has been passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, who happens to be the Appellate Authority of the Petitioner. As such the Petitioner is deprived of an opportunity to prefer a statutory appeal as has been provided under the RPF Rules, 1987. On a careful examination of the RPF Rules, 1987, this Court finds that there is no bar in Appellate Authority imposing punishment on the Delinquent Member of the Force. Although, it is open to the petitioner to take such a ground while assailing the order passed by such authority. Moreover, this Court further observes that in Rule-212 of the RPF Rules, 1987, it has been specifically provided that the members of the Force may prefer an appeal against an order imposing punishment as specified under Rule-148 and 149 to the authority immediately superior to the authority imposing such punishment. Since the punishment in the present case has been imposed under Rule-148 of the RPF Rules, 1987. Therefore, an appeal shall lie to the next higher authority in the hierarchy. Since the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar is the Appellate Authority of the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that in the present case the Petitioner should have preferred an appeal before the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar as has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 08.02.2025 under Annexure- 13 to the writ application. Page 4 of 5. 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as the legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar within a period of one week from today. In the event such an appeal is preferred by the Petitioner taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents, the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 shall entertain the appeal by condoning the delay, if any, in preferring such appeal and the appeal shall be heard and considered on its own merit in accordance with the relevant rules as well as the law applicable to appeal preferred by the petitioner and shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of such appeal by passing a speaking and reasoned order. 8. It is further clarified that in the event the Petitioner moves an interim application before the Appellate Authority seeking stay of the impugned order along with the appeal memo, the same shall also be considered on its own merit by the Appellate Authority. 9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Feb-2025 14:24:55