Telangana High Court
T.Mohan Rao, Moulai, Hyderabad . vs The Director, Railway Protection ... on 26 April, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.10489 of 2006
ORDER:
Petitioner is seeking to quash the charge sheet, dated 27.10.2004 and all the further proceedings imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on him.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Special Force in the year 1988 and promoted as a Head Constable in December, 2001 and was compulsorily retired on 25.01.2006. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 22.09.2004 while working as a Head Constable and performing the Train Escort Duty on Train No.3330 between Gaya and Dhanbad demanded an amount of Rs.5,000-00 from a passenger by name Abhay Singh and collected Rs.400-00 forcibly through Constable Tarle B.K. by threatening the said passenger to be booked for travelling without ticket and harassed him throughout the night and also threatened to encounter him. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, and thereafter, a regular inquiry was initiated, in which, the petitioner had participated. After concluding the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held that the 2 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. Questioning the same, the petitioner had filed appeal, which was dismissed. The 2nd appeal preferred by him was rejected on the ground that no 2nd appeal is maintainable as per Rules and only revisions are maintainable.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in a biased manner by boring grudge against him, as he complained against him on earlier occasion. He stated that the persons travelling in the train at the time of alleged incident were not examined in the preliminary inquiry proceedings by the Inquiry Officer and that the documents produced during the proceedings were not marked. It is also contended that the complainant Mr.Abhay Singh had withdrawn the complaint during the inquiry proceedings, however, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with inquiry and held the charges levelled against him as proved. It is also contended that the Appellate Authority had passed cryptic and non- speaking order confirming the punishment imposed on him, without considering the contentions raised by him. It is further contended that no such incident of demanding amount from the complainant had taken place. It is also his case that Mr.B.K.Tarle, Constable 7869 had addressed a letter to the Inquiry Officer stating that the statement given by him on 3 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 25.09.2004 against the petitioner was given on being threatened by the Company Commandant and the Sub-Inspector/Mr.S.Ramachandran. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the charge sheet and the consequential orders passed against him.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed in the vacate petition. The service of petitioner and the duties assigned to him are admitted in the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter that the preliminary inquiry is a fact- finding one, which is a step to ascertain the facts. It is stated that it is for the preliminary Inquiry Officer to decide as to whom he has to examine to find the basic facts of the issue. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that the complainant and his co-passenger / Rajendra Saha were not examined during preliminary inquiry, cannot be accepted, as they were examined during the main inquiry proceedings. Similarly certain persons, who were not examined during preliminary inquiry, were examined during the main inquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that inquiry is vitiated.
6. With regard to non-marking of exhibits, it is stated by the respondents that though the documents were not marked by assigning exhibit numbers, the said documents were produced during the inquiry proceedings and the petitioner was given opportunity to peruse the same and put-forth his case against those documents. Therefore, the inquiry 4 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 cannot be vitiated merely on the ground of not marking the documents. The respondents have denied the contention of petitioner that he was not given the opportunity of cross-examining the complainant and his co- passenger and stated that all the witnesses examined during the inquiry proceedings were cross-examined by the petitioner. It is also stated that the contention of petitioner that Devendra Singh/CT Bodyguard of DSC travelling in the same train had stated in the departmental inquiry that no incident had happened, cannot be taken into account, as the said Bodyguard had come into the compartment after the incident was over.
7. The punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner is also sought to be justified by the respondents by stating that the petitioner being entrusted with the duty of protecting the safety of the passengers, behaved like a terrorist with a weapon in his possession. With regard to withdrawal of complaint by the complainant, it is contended by the respondents that mere withdrawal of complaint cannot nullify the acts committed by the petitioner, and further, it is contended that while withdrawing the complaint, the complainant did not state that he was withdrawing the complaint, as it was falsely given. It is the case of respondents that the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal only after considering the petitioner's contentions and therefore, it cannot be 5 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 said that it was dismissed by cryptic and non-speaking order. It is further contended that the scope of revision is very limited and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner cannot be treated as a revision and accordingly it was rejected and the same was also intimated to the petitioner. Thus, contending that as the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved in the departmental proceedings, the punishment of compulsory retirement was rightly imposed on him and no interference is required in the matter. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. The service of petitioner in the Railway Protection Special Force and the duties assigned to him in the train in question are not in dispute. The allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded an amount of Rs.5000-00 from the complainant / passenger of the train and ultimately collected Rs.400-00 from him. A preliminary inquiry was conducted into the matter on the complaint given by the complainant and as a prima facie case was found in such preliminary inquiry, a regular departmental inquiry was initiated. The contention of petitioner that the persons who were travelling in the train were not examined during the preliminary inquiry, cannot be accepted as the preliminary inquiry will be conducted only to prima facie ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint. Only when prima facie material is available, the regular inquiry will be initiated.
6 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 Therefore, the respondents, on finding that there was prima facie evidence on the allegations made against the petitioner, have ordered for regular inquiry, during which, all the persons connected with the incident were examined. The contention of petitioner that the complainant himself had withdrawn the complaint during the inquiry proceedings, therefore, the inquiry should not have been conducted against him, also cannot be accepted, as by that time, sufficient evidence was available against the petitioner in respect of the charges levelled against him. Further, the withdrawal letter of complainant dated 23.05.2005, speaks that the petitioner be excused but it does not say that the complainant has given a false complaint against the petitioner. Thus, the complaint was withdrawn with a request to excuse the petitioner. It is to be seen that once a misconduct is brought to the notice of the authorities and sufficient evidence has come to light, it is up to the authorities either to punish or excuse the delinquent. In view of the serious allegation levelled against the petitioner, which is unbecoming of an employee of disciplinary force, the authorities concerned have proceeded against the petitioner and the same cannot be faulted with.
9. Coming to the other contention of petitioner that Mr.B.K.Tarle, Constable had addressed a letter to the Inquiry Officer stating that the 7 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 statement given by him on 25.09.2004 against the petitioner was given on being threatened by the Company Commandant and the Sub-Inspector/ Mr.S.Ramachandran, it is to be seen that once a statement was given before the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry proceedings, it is not open for the witness to contend, that too, by way of subsequent letter, that such statement was given by him under threat. The statement once given during the inquiry would be final and it is not known as to what prevented him from taking such plea of threat before the Inquiry Officer himself during the course of inquiry. The subsequent letter cannot nullify the statement of the witness given during the inquiry proceedings. Therefore, this contention of petitioner also cannot be accepted.
10. The learned counsel for respondents has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur 1, wherein, it is held as under:
"A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant material, if it is reasonable inference from proved facts. A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
As there are limits to the powers exercised by a Single Judge under Article 226 of the 1 (1972) 4 Supreme Court Caes 618 8 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 Constitution, there are limits to the powers of a Division Bench while sitting in appeal over the judgment of a Single Judge. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which material may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to arrive at an independent finding at the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court".
11. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another v. N.Gangaraj 2 and in Union of India and others v. P.Gunasekaran 3. In these two judgments, it is held that the power of judicial review conferred on Constitutional Court or Tribunal is not that of an Appellate Authority but is confined only to decision making process. It is also held that only when the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority is not supported by evidence or is unreasonably arrived at, Writ Court can interfere with finding of disciplinary authority.
12. The aforesaid three judgments relied on by the learned counsel for respondents are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case also, the inquiry has been conducted as per Rules and the petitioner has also participated throughout the proceedings. The petitioner was also 2 (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 423 3 (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 610 9 JS, J W.P.No.10489 of 2006 supplied with all the documents that were filed during the inquiry proceedings and he has also cross-examined the witnesses during the proceedings. Only after following such procedure, the inquiry was concluded holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. Therefore, under writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere with such findings.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 26.04.2024 Ksk