Ramrao Maroti Shinde vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11012 Bom

                                                                     wp4802.2020
                                       (1)

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.4802 OF 2020

 Ramrao s/o Maroti Shinde,
 Age : 42 years, Occu. A.S.I. (R.P.F.),
 R/o R.P.F. Barrack, Manmad,
 Tq. Nandgaon, Dist. Nashik                      ..PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       Union of India,
          Through Secretary
          Ministry of Railway,
          (Railway Board),
          New Delhi

 2.       The General Manager,
          Central Railway,
          Mumbai

 3.       DIG/Chief Security Commissioner
          Office of Principal CSC,
          R.P.F., CSMT, Mumbai

 4.       Senior Divisional Security Commissioner,
          RPF, Bhusawal

 5.       Disciplinary Authority &
          Divisional Security Commissioner
          R.P.F., Bhusawal                       ..RESPONDENTS


 Mr Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner;
 Mr M.N. Navandar, Standing Counsel for respondents

                                     CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                     AND
                                              S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 13th August, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

wp4802.2020

2. This matter was heard finally at admission stage on 12 th August,

2021. Since it was rising time when the hearing had concluded, we posted

it today for dictation of the judgment.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that

the enquiry was already concluded and yet, a fresh charge-sheet was

issued and a fresh enquiry was contemplated. Notice was issued to the

respondents on 9th July, 2020. Since none appeared for respondent nos.1

to 5, this Court directed the respondents that they would not pass a final

order, though they would be at liberty to conduct the fresh enquiry.

4. The contention of the petitioner as set out in the memo of the

petition, can be summarized as under:-

a) A departmental enquiry was initiated in May, 2019 against the

petitioner on the ground of forging travelling entries for acquiring excess

allowance. This was on a complaint from a Railway employee to the senior

authorities of the Railway Protection Force (for short, "Force"). On 22 nd

July, 2019, an order of punishment, of a minor nature, was issued and the

payment of one increment was stopped for a period of six months which

would have no effect on his pay scale there beyond (without cumulative

effect).

wp4802.2020

b) An amount of Rs.4,950/- which was alleged to be excess travelling

allowance earned by the petitioner on different occasions, was deducted

from his monthly salary payable in March, 2019. This was done before

initiating the disciplinary proceeding. Pursuant to the punishment, it is

stated that the authorities deducted Rs.19,350/- from the salary of the

petitioner payable in December, 2019.

c) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that a show cause

notice dated 8th November, 2019 was issued to him by respondent no.3,

exercising it's powers under Rule 219.4 (b) of the Railway Protection Force

Rules, 1987. It was stated in the said notice that as insufficient punishment

was imposed by respondent no.4 and since the superior authority

disagreed with the quantum of punishment, an explanation was sought

from the petitioner. The petitioner raised a defence in his reply dated

21.11.2019 that a subsequent fresh enquiry/departmental proceedings for

the same misconduct was not permissible. By order dated 2 nd December,

2019, respondent no.3 passed an order of withdrawal of the earlier

punishment order dated 22.7.2019 and directed respondent no.4 to issue a

fresh charge-sheet having regard to a major punishment being in the

offing. This was in contravention of Rule 219.4 (b), as per the contention

of the petitioner.

d) Pursuant to the notice dated 2.12.2019, a fresh charge-sheet dated

19.12.2019 was issued by respondent no.4 appointing Inspector, Railway

Protection Force, Chalisgaon as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has

wp4802.2020

pleaded in paragraph 4 that "letter following procedure, inquiry preliminary

and final was conducted by recording statement of witnesses as well as of

petitioner and considering substantive objection of petitioner of vitiation of

said inquiry in light of second departmental proceedings powers are not

specifically there as well as conduction of said second inquiry by officer

who has held charge of said post in view of riders laid in Railway Board's

Master Circular No.67 issued vide I.No.E(D & A) 2001 RG 6-3 dated

20.10.2002, excepting letter contention of petitioner, respondent no.5 by

his divisional order dated 25.6.2020, directed for dropping of said second

inquiry dated 19.12.2019 bearing No.BSL/153/DE-14/2019 and issuance of

fresh charge-sheet. That immediately another charge-sheet dated

25.6.2020 was issued by respondent no.5."

e) As the respondents realized that the second enquiry was vitiated in

the absence of specific powers, a fresh enquiry was directed vide order

dated 25.6.2020 and reimbursement of amount deducted from the

petitioner in view of the earlier minor punishment awarded.

5. In the backdrop of the submissions of the petitioner, we called upon

the learned Advocate to state as to whether an Enquiry Officer was

appointed to conduct an enquiry with reference to the show cause notice

dated 20.5.2019 and whether he had appointed a defence representative

and whether a full-fledged enquiry was conducted by permitting both the

sides to record oral and documentary evidence? Both the learned

Advocates have stated that an Enquiry Officer was not appointed and a

wp4802.2020

full-fledged departmental enquiry was not conducted. It has emerged from

the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Force

that as the Force had thought of dealing with the misconduct of the

petitioner as a minor misconduct, that a full-fledged departmental enquiry

was not conducted.

6. The learned Advocate for the Force submits as under:-

a) A senior officer above the disciplinary authority realized that the

misconduct committed by the petitioner on 2.7.2018 was not a minor

misconduct since it involved the act of manipulating the duty timing so as to

earn more allowances, the conduct of the petitioner amounted to

misappropriation and dishonesty.

b) In the above backdrop, a show cause notice was issued on

8.11.2019 invoking Rule 146.2 and 146.4. The charge was specifically

framed. Since the higher authority realized that a major misconduct is

likely to be countenanced since the case was being treated under the

minor misconduct category, a higher punishment/enhancement in

punishment in terms of Rule 219.4 (b), was proposed. Accordingly the said

officer directed the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Bhusawal to

issue a fresh major charge-sheet under Rule 153 of the R.P.F. Rules.

c) Consequent to the above, the disciplinary authority issued a fresh

charge-sheet dated 19.12.2019.

wp4802.2020

d) By office note dated 19.6.2020, departmental proceedings were

initiated under Rule 153 against the petitioner in connection with the

memorandum dated 19.12.2019.

e) On 25.6.2020, the Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F.,

Bhusawal passed an order No.94/2020, in order to correct it's

administrative mistake. It was proposed to drop the ongoing DAR

proceedings (departmental enquiry) under Rule 153 vide the memorandum

dated 19.12.2019 and a new charge-sheet was directed to be issued for

commencing the DAR proceedings afresh under Rule 153.

f) A fresh charge-sheet was issued on 25.6.2020 by the disciplinary

authority. An officer of the rank of Inspector at Chalisgaon, Shri Gokul

Sononi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The charges beginning from

2nd July, 2018 and a further alleged offence committed on 3.7.2018 were

included in the said charge-sheet.

g) On the same day 25.6.2020, by the divisional order No.93/2020, the

earlier punishment of stoppage of one increment for six months without

cumulative effect imposed by order dated 22.7.2019, was withdrawn and

the amounts recovered from the petitioner/unpaid amounts, were directed

to be refunded to him.

wp4802.2020

7. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court

dated 26.10.2018 in Writ Petition No.8523 of 2015 filed by Mujaffar

Hussain Mansoori vs. The Union of India & ors., at Aurangabad to

support his contention that if a person is found guilty in an enquiry, another

departmental enquiry with regard to the same charge cannot be initiated.

This Court had considered the facts in the said case wherein a full-fledged

departmental enquiry was conducted and though the employee was

punished with penalty of reduction in rank for a period of two years with

cumulative effect, subsequently the entire enquiry was dropped and a fresh

enquiry was commenced. This Court allowed the petition, to the extent of

the second departmental enquiry being conducted on the same facts.

8. We find from Chapter XI-Discipline and Conduct under Railway

Protection Force Rules, 1987 which prescribes the manner of conducting

an enquiry and placing the delinquent under suspension. Rule 146 deals

with code of behaviour for members of the Force. Rule 146.2 pertains to

neglect of duty. Rule 146.4 pertains to discreditable conduct. Rule 146.6

pertains to falsehood or pre-fabrication. Rule 146.7 dealt with corrupt or

improper practice. Rule 147 enlists the acts which can be termed as being

misconducts, in short this being a list of misconducts.

9. Chapter XII-Disciplinary and Penal Punishments deals with different

kinds of punishments that can be inflicted upon a delinquent if a charge is

proved. Rule 148.2 provides major punishments and Rule 148.3 provides

minor punishments. Rule 148.4 is with regard to petty punishments. Rule

wp4802.2020

149 prescribes other punishments.

10. Rule 153 prescribes the procedure for imposing major punishment.

Rule 154 enables the disciplinary authority to act on the enquiry report.

Rule 157 prescribes reduction in rank, grade or in the scale of pay. Rule

158 prescribes the procedure for imposing minor punishments.

11. In the instant case, we would be addressing to two issues. Firstly,

as to whether the punishment dated 22.7.2019 inflicted upon the petitioner

can be said to be a consequence of a full-fledged departmental enquiry, in

the light of the contention of the petitioner that a second enquiry has been

initiated for the same misconduct. The second issue is, whether the Force

could be permitted to re-call it's order of punishment, drop the earlier

proceedings and initiate a fresh enquiry with regard to misconduct which

amounts to a major misdemeanor, under Rule 219.4 (b)?.

12. Rule 159 requires the departmental proceeding file to contain the

following documents:-

"159. Departmental Proceeding file :- Every Departmental Proceeding

File shall contain documents in the following order with an index sheet :

 (i)      Order sheet,
 (ii)     Preliminary papers,
 (iii)    Charge,
 (iv)     Statement of Prosecution witnesses,




                                                                          wp4802.2020


 (v)      Prosecution exhibits,
 (vi)     Defence statement of "guilty" or "not guilty",
 (vii)    Statement of defence witnesses,
 (viii)   Written statement of defence, if any,
 (ix)     Findings of the Inquiry Officer,
 (x)      Order of the Disciplinary Authority,
 (xi)     Appeal and Order."

13. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the present

enquiry initiated by the Force amounts to a second departmental enquiry,

is wholly misconceived and fallacious. As no departmental enquiry was

necessary for awarding a minor punishment, the Force had not conducted

a full-fledged departmental enquiry which is termed as BAR proceeding.

The grievance of the petitioner that a second enquiry is being initiated,

therefore, is baseless.

14. This leads us to the second issue as to whether the superior

authority of the Force could have dropped the proceedings after the stage

of inflicting/imposing punishment on a delinquent and which punishment

had been acted upon. The petitioner was served with the order of

punishment dated 22.7.2019 by which his next increment was suspended

for a period of six months without cumulative effect. This order of

punishment was implemented. It is seen from the pleadings of the

petitioner that an amount of Rs.19,350/- towards the increment for a period

of six months was also recovered from him.

wp4802.2020

15. In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 153

(153.1 to 153.20), which read as under:-

"153. Procedure for imposing major punishments : 153.1 Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquires Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in rank shall be passed on any enrolled member of the Force (save as mentioned in rule 161) without holding an inquiry, as far as may be in the manner provided hereinafter, in which he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself.

153.2 (i) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an enrolled member of the Force, it may itself inquire into, or appoint an Inquiry Officer higher in rank to the enrolled member charged but not below the rank of Inspector, or institute a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the truth thereof.

153.2 (ii) Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference to the Inquiry Officer in these rules shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority.

153.3 On receipt of complaint or otherwise, the disciplinary authority on going through the facts alleged or brought out shall decide whether it is a case for major or minor punishment. No attempt shall be made to convert cases punishable under section 16 A or section 17 into disciplinary cases nor divert cases in respect of which major punishments are imposable to the category of cases where minor or petty punishments are imposable.

wp4802.2020

153.4 Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against an enrolled member of the Force under this rule, the disciplinary authority may order that the enrolled member shall not be transferred to any other place nor given leave without its written permission till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up-

(a) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct articles of charge;

(b) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge which shall contain,-

(i) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the enrolled member of the Force, and

(ii) a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

153.5 The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the delinquent member, at least seventy-two hours before the commencement of the inquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and fix a date when the inquiry is to commence; subsequent dates being fixed by the Inquiry Officer.

153.6 Where the enrolled member charged has absconded or where it is not possible to serve the documents on him in person or where he deliberately evades service, the procedure laid down in sections 62, 64, 65 and 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

wp4802.2020

shall be adopted by the Inquiry Officer for service of such documents and the same shall be deemed to be a conclusive proof of service.

153.7 For securing the presence of private prosecution witnesses, the Inquiry Officer may allow free travel passes according to their status in accordance with extant Railway Rules.

153.8 The enrolled member charged shall not be allowed to bring in a legal practitioner at the proceedings but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other member of the Force (hereinafter referred to as "friend" ) where in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer, the enrolled member charged cannot put up his defence properly. Such "friend" must be a serving member of the Force of or below the rank of Sub-Inspector for the time being posted in the same division or the battalion where the proceedings are pending and not acting as a "friend" in any other proceedings pending anywhere. Such "friend" shall, however, not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witnesses.

153.9. If the enrolled member charged fails to turn up on the day fixed for the start of inquiry and no reasonable excuse is offered for not being present on the fixed time and day, the Inquiry Officer may commence the inquiry ex-parte.

153.10 At the commencement of the inquiry, the party charged shall be asked to enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary. If oral-

wp4802.2020

(a) it shall be direct;

(b) it shall be recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the party charged; and

the party charged shall be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.

153.11 If the witnesses are government officers of a rank superior to the party charged, the Inquiry Officer may, at the request of the party charged, put the questions to such officer.

153.12 All evidence shall be recorded, in the presence of the party charged, by the Inquiry Officer himself or on his dictation by a scribe. Cross-examination by the party charged or the fact of his declining to cross-examine the witness, as the case may be, shall also be recorded. The statement of each witness shall be read over to him and explained, if necessary, in the language of the witness, whose signature shall be obtained as a token of his having understood the contents. Statement shall also be signed by the Inquiry Officer and the party charged. Copy of each statement shall be given to the party charged who shall acknowledge receipt on the statement of witness itself. The Inquiry Officer shall record a certificate of acing read over the statement to the witness in the presence of the party charged.

153.13 Documentary exhibits, if any, are to be numbered while being presented by the concerned witness and reference of the number shall be noted in the statement of the witness. Such documents may be admitted in evidence as exhibits without being formally proved unless the party charged does not admit the genuineness of such a document and wishes to cross-examine the witness who is purported to have signed it. Copies of the exhibits

wp4802.2020

may be given to the party charged on demand except in the case of voluminous documents, where the party charged may be allowed to inspect the same in the presence of Inquiry Officer and take notes."

153.14 Unless specifically mentioned in these rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall not apply to the departmental proceedings under these rules.

153.15 The party charged shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the Inquiry Officer. If the party charged has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads "not guilty", he shall be required to file within 10 days a written statement together with a list of such witnesses as he may wish to produce in his defence and giving therein a gist of evidence that each witness is expected to give. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the Inquiry Officer on the expiry of the period allowed and his statement, if any, recorded.

153.16 If the party charged refuses to produce any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence, the Inquiry officer shall proceed to record the evidence. If the Inquiry Officer considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the party charged wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders after recording the statement, if any, of the party charged and obtaining any clarification, if necessary, from him.

wp4802.2020

153.17 Under no circumstances additional prosecution witnesses shall be examined after the defence has been let in unless supplementary defence witnesses have been allowed on that ground. However, if at any stage during the inquiry, it appears to the Inquiry Officer that examination of any witness who has not been produced by either party so far or recall of any witness who has already been examined is essential in the interest of justice or to clear any doubt, he may summon him for the purpose and examine him as a witness of the Inquiry Officer after recording his reasons for doing so. Such a witness may also be cross examined by the party charged, if desired.

153.18 Whenever any Inquiry Officer after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Inquiry Officer who has and exercises such jurisdiction, the Inquiry Officer so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by him or himself record it afresh as he deems expedient.

153.19 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings on each of the charges with reasons therefor. The findings must be of "guilty" or "not guilty" and no room shall be allowed for "benefit of doubt" or personal surmises. A charge shall be deemed to have been proved if after considering the evidence before him, the Inquiry Officer believes the ingredients constituting the charge to exist or considers their existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they exist.

wp4802.2020

153.20 If in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer, the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, he may record his findings on such charges:

Provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the party charged has admitted the facts constituting them and has had an opportunity of defending himself against them."

16. It is, therefore, obvious that if a misconduct committed by the

delinquent is so proved, major punishment can be awarded by following

the procedure laid down below Rule 153. As the disciplinary authority, in

the view of the superior authority, had misdirected itself and out of

misconception considered the act of the petitioner of dishonesty and

misappropriation as a minor act, he recorded the confession of the

petitioner and proceeded to impose a minor punishment. In our view, the

superior authority could have dropped the entire proceedings before it

reached a logical conclusion and culminated into an order of punishment.

In given circumstances, even after the order of punishment was issued, the

superior authority could have exercised it's powers flowing under the Rules

to give up the entire proceeding in the backdrop of the misconduct of the

petitioner appearing to be a major misconduct which could also be termed

as a 'grave and serious misconduct'. The 1987 Rules provide for revisional

powers under Rule 219 to review the action taken. The Force relied upon

Rule 219.4 (b) for dropping the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to which

a fresh charge-sheet was issued which was also dropped as an authority

not competent to be the disciplinary authority in relation to the position of

the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector, had framed the charge.

wp4802.2020

Thereafter, the authority which could be the disciplinary authority in relation

to the petitioner, framed a fresh charge-sheet which is a subject-matter of

challenge before us.

17. Rule 219 (219.1 to 219.4) read as under:-

"219.Revision :

219.1 An enrolled member of the Force whose appeal has been

rejected by a competent authority may prefer an application for

revision to the next superior authority. The powers of revision may

be exercised only when,-

(a) in consequence of some material irregularity, there has been

injustice of miscarriage of justice; or (b) fresh evidence is disclosed

which could not be produced or was not available at the time of

passing of the impugned order.

219.2 The procedure prescribed for consideration of appeals under

rule 217 shall, so far as may be, apply to application for revision.

219.3 The superior authority while passing orders on the application

for revision may at its discretion enhance punishments:

Provided that before enhancing the punishment, the aggrieved

member shall be given an opportunity to show cause why his

punishment should not be enhanced:

Provided further that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule

212, an order enhancing the punishment shall be treated as an

wp4802.2020

original order for the purpose of appeal, except when such an order

has been passed by the Central Government in which case no

further appeal shall lie. Where such order has been passed by the

Principal*Chief Security Commissioner, appeal shall lie to the

Director General and in the case of such order by the Director

General, the appeal shall lie to the Central Government.

219.4 Any authority superior to the authority making the original

order may, on its own motion, or otherwise, call for the records of

any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules and may:-

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or

(b) confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the punishment imposed

by the order, or impose any punishment where no punishment has

been imposed; or

(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any

other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry

as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or

(d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit:

Provided that no action under this sub-rule shall be initiated after the

expiry of one year from the date of the order aforesaid:

Provided further that no proceeding for revision shall be

commenced until after-

wp4802.2020

(i) the expiry of the period for making an appeal specified in sub-

section (2) of section 9 ; or

(ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been

preferred :

Provided further that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance

punishment further, the aggrieved member shall be given an

opportunity to show cause either orally or in writing as to why his

punishment should not be enhanced."

18. Considering the Rules applicable, an authority superior to the

disciplinary authority making the original order, on it's own motion or

otherwise, can call for the records of any enquiry and revise any order

made under these Rules. These are defined as the revisional powers of

the superior authority. Such authority could then opt for any of the four

clauses (a to d) under Rule 219.4. Shri Navandar submits on the basis of

the records that clause (b) was invoked by the superior authority. It

requires no debate that clause (b) allows the superior authority to confirm,

enhance, reduce or set aside the punishment imposed or impose any

punishment where no punishment has been imposed. We find clause (b)

to have the semblance of super imposing on clause (a) which enables the

superior authority to confirm, modify or set aside the order. However, we

are not convinced by the action of the Force of resorting to clause (b) for

dropping the entire proceedings on the ground that the superior authority

was of the view that the petitioner deserved to be imposed with

wp4802.2020

punishment or enhance the punishment. Imposition of punishment was

possible only if no punishment was imposed. Enhancement in punishment

is also possible provided the punishment sought to be proposed can be

founded on the enquiry that has already been conducted against a

delinquent.

19. The dilemma before the Force (which has been properly assessed

by the superior authority) is that the misconduct of misappropriation and

dishonesty calls for a major punishment in the light of Janatha Bazar

(South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.), etc. vs.

The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarnama Sangha, AIR 2000 SC 3129,

Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant & ors.,

(2001) 1 SCC 182 and P.R. Shele vs. Union of India, 2008 (23) Bom.

C.R. 213 of the Division Bench Bombay High Court. The quantum of

misappropriation is insignificant when it comes to a misconduct attracting

the charge of misappropriation and dishonesty. As the disciplinary

authority had earlier inflicted punishment of a minor nature, he did not

conduct a departmental enquiry since it was not necessary. However, to

enhance the punishment so as to deal with a major misconduct, a

departmental enquiry was necessary which was not conducted earlier. We

do not find from the revisional powers of the superior authority that he

could drop the entire disciplinary proceedings and start new disciplinary

proceedings "afresh" while exercising his revisional powers under Rule

219.4 (b).

wp4802.2020

20. For the sake of brevity and to avoid misinterpretation by any of the

parties, we make it clear that we are considering the challenge of the

petitioner to the action of the Force said to have been undertaken under

Rule 219.4 (b). Since the impugned action is not under the remaining

three clauses out of which clause (d) may have a wide amplitude, our

conclusions in this judgment to the extent of this challenge, would be

restricted to clause (b).

21. In view of the above, since we have concluded that the impugned

action of the Force in issuing the orders dated 19.6.2020 and 25.6.2020 of

preparation and issuance of a fresh charge-sheet and a full-fledged

departmental enquiry being initiated under Chapter XII of the Rules cannot

be sustained under Rule 219.4 (b), the issuance of a fresh charge-sheet so

as to commence a fresh departmental enquiry would not be permissible,

though such an enquiry is not a second enquiry being conducted by the

Force taking into account that there was no departmental enquiry

conducted in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner

which resulted in the order of punishment dated 22.7.2019.

22. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed with the following

directions:-

a) The impugned office note dated 19.6.2020 (page 23), the divisional

order No.93/2020 dated 25.6.2020, divisional order No.94/2020

dated 25.6.2020 and the order No.223/29 dated 2.12.2019 and the

wp4802.2020

charge-sheet dated 19.12.2019 as well as the show cause notice

dated 8.11.2019, are quashed and set aside.

b) Respondent no.3 is at liberty to pass a specific order restoring the

earlier order of punishment dated 22.7.2019 and initiate

consequential orders by which the said disciplinary proceedings

would culminate. With the above directions, the charge with

reference to the offence committed on 2.7.2018 mentioned in the

memorandum dated 20.5.2019 will be put to rest.

c) If the petitioner has committed any misconduct after 2 nd July, 2018,

respondent nos.3 to 5 would be at liberty to follow the Act of 1957

and the 1987 Rules for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner.

d) Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

23. The pending Civil Application would not survive and stands

disposed off.

  (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                          (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

 amj