Maruti S/O Bapurao Thombare vs Union Of India, Ministry Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4452 Bom

           Judgment                             1       918 wp 2212-2021.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                  WRIT PETITION NO.2212 OF 2021


      Maruti s/o Bapurao Thombare,
      Aged about 49 years, Occu. - Service,
      Constable Employed with Railway
      Protection Force at Nagpur,
      R/o Railway Quarter, Anaji, Nagpur.
                                                     .... PETITIONER

                             // VERSUS //

1)    Union of India,
      Ministry of Railway,
      Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.

2)    Assistant Security Commissioner,
      Central Railway, Office of Railway
      Protection Force, Nagpur.
                                             .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
     Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for respondents.
______________________________________________________________


                  CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                          SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

DATED : 27.04.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

Judgment 2 918 wp 2212-2021.odt

3. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the enquiry

proceedings initiated against him on the basis of memorandum dated

26/03/2021, whereby the petitioner was informed that the

Departmental Enquiry was proposed to be held against him.

4. Shri Khanzode, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Departmental Enquiry, which is now being held against the

petitioner on the charge that in a case filed against him by the Central

Bureau of Investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of

Corruption Act before the Kalyan Court, the petitioner remained absent

on one date because of which non-bailable warrant was issued against

the petitioner and after execution of the warrant, the petitioner was

arrested and was produced before Kalyan Court is illegal, as earlier

Departmental Enquiry has been withdrawn and the fact that Kalyan

Court released him on bail, would show that there is no misconduct on

his part falling within any of the Clauses of the Rule 146 of the Railway

Protection Force Rules, 1987.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

on the designated date, the lawyer of the petitioner did not appear

before the Court and because of his failure to appear before the Court,

non-bailable warrant came to be issued against the petitioner. He

further submits that after production of the petitioner before the

concerned Court at Kalyan in execution of non-bailable warrant issued Judgment 3 918 wp 2212-2021.odt

against him, the petitioner was immediately released on bail.

According to him, absence of the petitioner before Kalyan Court was

not deliberate and, at any rate, it would not amount to any breach of

Code of behavior for the members of the Force as prescribed in Rule

146 of the Railway Protection Force Rules.

6. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the respondents, relying

upon Rule 146.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, submits that

unauthorized absence of the petitioner in any anti-corruption case

pending against him in Kalyan Court brought discredit to the force and,

therefore, he submits that the Departmental Enquiry which has been

initiated against the petitioner is fully justified under the Railway

Protection Force Rules.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

as regards allegations of taking of bribe by the petitioner from some

person, earlier Departmental Enquiry initiated against him on that

charge was already withdrawn and, therefore, no charge on this count

could have been framed in the present enquiry.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

charge that was levelled against the petitioner in earlier enquiry was

different than the charge now levelled against the petitioner in the

present enquiry. He points out that two instances of misconduct on the Judgment 4 918 wp 2212-2021.odt

part of the petitioner have been pointed out in the Statement of Charge

issued to him and both these instances are based upon the violation of

Rule 146.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, which was not the

case earlier.

9. Before we consider the rival submissions, it is necessary for

us to understand what the 'Code of Behaviour for members of Railway

Protection Force' is all about. The Rule 146 of the Railway Protection

Force Rules, 1987 prescribes Code of Behaviour for members of the

force. For the purposes of this petition, the provision made in Rule

146.4 is reproduced as under:

"146.4 Discreditable conduct. - No member of the Force shall act in any manner prejudicial to discipline or conduct himself in such a manner which is reasonably likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Force."

10. It would be clear from the above referred provision that

every such act of a member of the Force, which causes prejudice to the

discipline of the members of the Force, which is likely to bring discredit

to the reputation of the Force in a reasonable manner, is called as

'discreditable conduct' and is, therefore, liable to be taken cognizance

of when a member of a disciplined Force like Railway Protection Force

indulges in such an act.

Judgment 5 918 wp 2212-2021.odt

11. Against the background of this provision of law, now, we

have to consider the Statement of Charges issued to the petitioner vide

memorandum dated 26.03.2021. It reads thus:

"vkjksi

drZO;ikyu esa ?kksj ykijokgh & jsy lqj{kk cy dh Nfo /kwfey djuk &

1- vkidks fnukad 15-04-2010 dks dlkjk LVs"ku ij ACB/Mumbai }kjk Hkz'Vkpkj ds laca/k esa fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k ,oa vki ij vijkf/kd ekeyk ntZ fd;k x;k k vkids bl d`R; ls jsy lqj{kk cy dh Noh /kwfey gqvh k ,slk dj vkius jslqc fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 146-4 ,oa jsy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 3(1)

(iii) dk mYya?ku fd;k gS k

2- CBI Court Kalyan }kjk mDr dksVZ dsl dh frFkh fnukad 05-02-2021 dks fu/kkZfjr dh x;h Fkh k vki mDr frFkh dks CBI Court Kalyan esa vuqifLFkr jgsa ftl dkj.k vkids f[kykQ CBI Court Kalyan }kjk vtekurh; okjaV (NBW) tkjh fd;k x;k ftldh vuqikyuk esa fnukad 20- 03-2021 dks CBI Team Mumbai }kjk vkidks vtuh fLFkr vkokl ls fxj¶rkj dj eqacbZ ys tk;k x;k k vkids bl d`R; ls jsy lqj{kk cy dh Noh /kwfey gqvh k ,slk dj vkius jslqc fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 146-4 ,oa jsy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 3(1)(iii) dk mYya?ku fd;k gS k"

12. A bare perusal of the above Statement of Charges issued to

the petitioner would show that the charges refer to such conduct of the

petitioner as is likely and in a reasonable manner discredit the

members of the disciplined Force like Railway Protection Force. A

member of Railway Protection Force is under a duty to perform his

duty diligently and without falling prey to any temptation or any

allurement for money and can under no circumstances indulge in a

behaviour, as would give rise to filing of a case against him under the

provisions of the Corruption Act. Similarly, every member of a

disciplined Force like Railway Protection Force is also under an

obligation to obey the orders and commands issued by a competent Judgment 6 918 wp 2212-2021.odt

Court of Law i.e. Kalyan Court in the present case, which would make a

member of the Railway Protection Force like the petitioner to remain

present on a particular date. It is the duty of such a member to attend

the Court personally on appointed date and if he fails to do that, he is

likely to project himself as an indisciplined member of a disciplined

Force which would, reasonably bring discredit to the Force of which he

is a member, unless there is a sufficient cause shown by him. Now,

whether there is any sufficient cause or not is a matter of defence of

such a member of the Force and that defence would always be

available to him, which he can put up before the Enquiry Officer at an

appropriate time. But, something which is a matter of defence cannot

be a ground for this Court to make any interference with the ongoing

enquiry proceeding.

13. As regards the misconduct arising from entrapping of the

petitioner in a case under the provisions of the Corruption Act, we

must say that the charge made against the petitioner earlier was

different and it was not based upon breach of Code of Behaviour as

prescribed under Rule 146.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules.

Therefore, even on this charge, we find that no illegality has been

committed by the respondents in initiating fresh departmental enquiry

against the petitioner.

Judgment 7 918 wp 2212-2021.odt

14. In the result, we find no substance in this petition. The

petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.

                                         (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)               (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)


                                R.S. Sahare




Signed By:RANJANA SAMEER
SAHARE


Signing Date:28.04.2022 18:54