Bombay High Court
Shri. Vikas Singh Rajput vs Union Of India Thru The Prin. Chief ... on 24 January, 2024
Author: Nitin Jamdar
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M.Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:3722-DB
Trupti 1 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5406 OF 2019
Shri Praval Pratap Singh
Age 51 years, Ex-Constable
Railway Protection Force,
Bhusawal Division,
Residing at Chawl No.3, Room No.1,
Old Manish Nagar, Betulkar Pada,
Kalyan (West), Dist: Thane ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. Union of India,
Through the Principal Chief Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force
Central Railway, Mumbai CST,
Mumbai - 400 001.
2. The Chief Security Commissioner,
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Additional Chief Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Mumbai - 400 001.
4. The Divisional Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Bhusawal Division,
Jalgaon ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5511 OF 2019
Shri Vikas Singh Rajput
Age 37 years, Ex-Constable
Railway Protection Force,
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 06:57:05 :::
Trupti 2 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
Thane- Matunga Division,
Residing at Old Itarsi, Ward No.3,
Sardar Patel Pura, Dist. Hoshagabad,
Itarsi- 461 111, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. Union of India,
Through the Principal Chief Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST,
Mumbai - 400 001.
2. The Chief Security Commissioner,
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Additional Chief Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Mumbai - 400 001
4. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner,
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, CSTM,
Mumbai - 400 001. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5597 OF 2019
Shri Vinit Kumar Pandey
Age 37 years, Ex-Constable
Railway Protection Force,
Matunga Cash Guard, Mumbai Division,
Central Railway, Mumbai
residing at Shree Dwarka Dham,
Tilak Nagar, Makan No. 32, BHEL
Simrawari, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. Union of India,
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 06:57:05 :::
Trupti 3 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
Through the Principal Chief Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST,
Mumbai - 400 001.
2. The Chief Security Commissioner,
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Additional Chief Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Mumbai - 400 001.
4. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner,
Railway Protection Force,
Central Railway, CSTM,
Mumbai - 400 001. ... Respondents
.......
Mr.Vishal Shirke for the Petitioners in all Writ Petitions.
Mr.Ashok D. Shetty for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition
No. 5406 of 2019.
Mr.R.R.Shetty with Mr.Sachin B. Patil for the Respondents in Writ
Petition No. 5597 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 5511 of 2019.
.......
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 24 JANUARY 2024
JUDGMENT (Per Nitin Jamdar, J.)
These three writ petitions arise from the same proceeding.
They have been argued together and are disposed of by this common
judgment.
Trupti 4 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
2. The Petitioners were working with the Railway Protection
Force. Praval Pratap Singh (Writ Petition No. 5406 of 2019) was
working as a head constable in the Railway Protection Force,
Bhusawal Division. Vikas Singh Rajput(Writ Petition No. 5511 of
2019) worked as a constable in the Railway Protection Force, Thane
- Matunga Division of the Central Railway. Vinit Kumar
Pandey( Writ Petition No. 5597 of 2019) was working as a head
constable in the Railway Protection Force, Mumbai Division of
Central Railway. The Petitioners were removed from service. Their
appeals and revision appeals have been dismissed. These orders are
challenged by the Petitioners in their respective petitions.
3. A complaint was filed by one Sameer Zaveri, who collected
information regarding the illegal activities of personnel of the
Railway Protection Force. The information revealed that certain
personnel of the Railway Protection Force were cheating railway
passengers by creating fake bail bonds. Railway personnel had
printed fake bail bonds. Since there was no investigation, Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 29 of 2010 came to be filed in this
Court, and this Court transferred the case to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI). An investigation was carried out by the CBI,
and the charge-sheet was filed by the CBI in Special Case No. 14 of
2013 in the Court of Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay. The
Petitioners were arraigned as accused along with others. The
departmental inquiry was also initiated against the Petitioners, and a
Trupti 5 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
memorandum of the charge sheet dated 17 December 2010 was
issued to the Petitioners. The inquiry was held, and the inquiry
officer submitted a report that the charges against the Petitioners
were proved. The Petitioners submitted their reply to the report of
the inquiry officer, and thereafter, the Respondents - Railway
Authorities imposed the penalty of removal from service on the
Petitioners. The Petitioners filed appeals which were dismissed, and
thereafter, the revision appeals were filed, which also came to be
dismissed. The Petitioners were removed from service, and the orders
of removal from service were confirmed. After dismissal of the
revisions, in the criminal trial under the common judgment dated 3
November 2017, the Petitioners came to be acquitted of the charges.
After acquittal, the Petitioners submitted representations to the
Respondent - the Chief Security Commissioner to review the case
and reinstate the Petitioners in view of the order of acquittal. The
Respondent - the Chief Security Commissioner rejected the prayer of
the Petitioners for reinstatement, observing that the court of
departmental inquiry and the criminal trial is different. In the
departmental inquiry, the charges have been proved, and therefore,
there is no need to review the order of removal from service.
Challenging these orders, the Petitioners are before us.
4. We have heard Mr. Vishal Shirke, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, Mr. Ashok Shetty, the learned Counsel for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 5406 of 2019 and Mr. R.R. Shetty,
Trupti 6 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
the learned Counsel for the Respondents in Writ Petition Nos. 5597
of 2019 and 5511 of 2019.
5. The facts narrated above are not in dispute. In the
departmental inquiry, the Petitioners have been held guilty.
Thereafter, the appeals and revision appeals filed by the Petitioners
have been dismissed. The Petitioners are seeking setting aside of the
order of removal of service and reinstatement only on the basis of the
order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge.
6. The question of whether a departmental inquiry and a criminal
trial can proceed concurrently with identical charges, and the impact
of an acquittal in the criminal trial, has been deliberated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on multiple decisions. Leading decisions
being in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Versus Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. and Another1 and G. M.Tank Versus State of Gujarat and
Others2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony has referred to the following decisions: Delhi Cloth &
General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan3, Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Workmen, Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari4, Kusheshwar
Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.5, Nelson Motis v. Union of India6,
State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena7, Depot Manager, A.P.SRTC v.
1 (1999) 3 SCC 679
2 (2006) 5 SCC 446
3 AIR 1960 SC 806
4 AIR 1969 SC 30
5 (1988) 4 SCC 319
6 (1992) 4 SCC 711
7 (1996) 6 SCC 417
Trupti 7 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
Mohd. Yousuf Miya.8 Legal principles that can be culled out from
these decisions as per our respectful opinion are as follows.
Proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings operate
in separate jurisdictions. In departmental proceedings, where
misconduct is under investigation, the disciplinary authority
considers various factors such as maintaining discipline and assessing
the integrity of the accused employee. The standard of proof
required in departmental proceedings is a preponderance of
probabilities, whereas in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove
the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. However, an exception exists
when both proceedings are based on the same facts and share
common evidence. While it is common for employers to postpone
inquiries until the criminal trial concludes, the principles of natural
justice do not mandate waiting for a criminal court decision before
taking action against an employee. In cases of grave nature or
involving complex questions of fact or law, it is advisable for the
employer to await the trial court's decision to avoid prejudicing the
employee's defence. Conducting parallel disciplinary and criminal
proceedings is not inherently wrong, still, it may be prudent to stay
the domestic inquiry if the incident leading to charges is being tried
in a criminal court. Simultaneous proceedings are permissible, but if
both are based on identical facts and the criminal charge is serious
with intricate legal and factual issues, suspending the departmental
proceedings until the criminal case concludes is preferable. The
determination of the gravity of charges and the complexity of legal
8 (1997) 2 SCC 699
Trupti 8 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
and factual issues in the criminal case depends on the nature of the
offence and the evidence collected during the investigation or
presented in the charge sheet. It is only if both the departmental and
criminal proceedings are grounded in identical facts, charges,
evidence, witnesses, and circumstances, and the criminal court finds
the appellant not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that it would be
unjust to uphold the findings of the departmental proceedings. With
these legal positions in mind, we will examine the case at hand.
7. The allegations against Praval Pratap Singh were that he failed
to maintain the records and register of the court section for the year
2008-2009 and committed various irregularities. In the inquiry, it
was revealed that the entries made by Praval Pratap Singh, when
tallied with the bail bonds register, resulted in the fabrication of the
Railway Register. He was lethargic and careless during his duties.
This was the gist of the charges against Praval Pratap Singh. The
allegations against Vikas Singh Rajput were that he abused his
official position and arrested certain persons as mentioned in the bail
bond receipts. He released them on bail without the supervision of
any subordinate officer and did not deposit the government money
of the bail amount. The amount was misappropriated, as the names
of the persons who were arrested by this Petitioner were not found in
the Railway Act Register. The allegations against Vinit Kumar
Pandey were that he manipulated the serial numbers of the Railway
Act Register and inserted the entry regarding the arrest of one person
Trupti 9 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
in the Railway Act Register. He sought to mislead the administration
and manipulated important official documents. The Petitioner was
negligent in respect of his duties and misappropriated the bail bond
amount.
8. In the criminal trial, as it can be seen from the judgment of the
learned Special Judge, twelve persons were tried as accused along
with the Petitioners. They faced trial for the offences punishable
under Sections 120-B, 409, 419, 466, 468, 471 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (C) & (d) read with Section 13
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution had
alleged that the Petitioners were involved in criminal conspiracy and
object of which was to cheat the members of the public by abusing
their official position as public servants. The prosecution has
examined 22 witnesses. Out of them, PW-6, PW-7, PW-10, PW-11,
PW-13, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 turned hostile and did not
support the prosecution. PW-1 was the original Complainant on
whose complaint the investigation was carried out. The learned
Special Judge, after considering the evidence on record, concluded
that the prosecution had failed to prove that after execution of the
form from the offenders, the Railway Protection Force staff received
a certain amount and misappropriated the same and there was no
clinching evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioners and others were
acquitted.
Trupti 10 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
9. Inherently, there is a difference between the departmental
inquiry and the criminal trial as the standard of proof required in
both cases is different. In the present case, it cannot be said that the
charges in the criminal trial and the departmental inquiry are
identical. In the departmental inquiry, the Respondents, Railway
Authorities, were concerned with the maintenance of discipline. In
the departmental inquiry, the Petitioners were found to be grossly
negligent in not maintaining official records and failed to furnish
proper information. The charges, which were proved against the
Petitioners in the departmental inquiry, were in respect of negligence
of their duty and non-maintenance of the official registers. In the
criminal trial, several prosecution witnesses turned hostile. It had to
be proved by the prosecution in the criminal trial that the Petitioners
had committed the offence of misappropriation and guilt. The
learned Special Judge found that the evidence being led by the
prosecution fell short of establishing the guilt of the Petitioners. In
the departmental inquiry, however, after full opportunity was given
to the Petitioners, the inquiry officer found that the charge of non-
maintenance of official records was proved.
10. The charges for misconduct in contravention of Rules 146.2
(i), (iv), 146.4, 146.6 (i)(ii)(iii), and 143.7 (ii) of the Railway
Protection Force Rules were levelled against the Petitioner, Praval
Pratap Singh. Therefore, the charges in the criminal trial and the
departmental inquiry in the case of this Petitioner are clearly
Trupti 11 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
different. While working as a dealer in the court section of Railway
Protection Force at Kurla, this Petitioner failed to maintain the
records and registers of the court section. In the departmental
inquiry, the inquiry officer concluded that there were irregularities in
the bail bond register. Concluding the departmental inquiry, the
inquiry officer proceeded on the preponderance of probabilities, and
in the criminal trial, stricter proof was required. Considering this
legal position and factual position, the Respondents, Railway
Authorities, did not accept the prayer of the Petitioners to reinstate
them after the order of acquittal passed in the criminal trial. In the
departmental inquiry, it was duly held that the Petitioners were
guilty. The appeals and revision appeals were also dismissed.
Thereafter, the order of acquittal came to be passed.
11. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission
of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that there was no
difference whatsoever between the departmental inquiry and the
criminal trial, and upon acquittal from the criminal trial, the
Petitioners should have been taken back into service.
12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in the alternative and
without reference to the order of acquittal, submitted that the
punishment imposed on the Petitioners is harsh and
disproportionate, and they should not have been removed from
service only because they did not maintain official registers properly.
Trupti 12 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
There is no merit in this contention. The Petitioners were working as
constables with the Railway Protection Force. The charges against
the Petitioners in the departmental inquiry were negligence of duty
and manipulation in the maintenance of records. Considering the
position of the Petitioners and the document in question, namely the
bail bond register, the punishment of removal from service for the
charges proved against the Petitioners cannot be considered harsh
and disproportionate. The Respondents, Railway Authorities,
conducted the inquiry as highlighted by the complainant, stating the
large-scale malpractice in the maintenance of bail bonds by
personnel of the Railway Protection Force. These lapses ultimately
affected society at large and were not only clerical lapses. In these
circumstances, the Respondents, Railway Authorities, rightly
imposed the penalty of removal from service. The Respondents were
also correct in refusing the Petitioners' request for reinstatement after
the order of acquittal and dismissal of the appeals and revision
appeals.
13. As far as the challenge to the orders of removal from service
and dismissal of the appeals and revision on merits is concerned, we
find that there is no scope for interference. The Petitioners were
given a full opportunity during the inquiry. Witnesses were
examined, and the factual finding was rendered that the Petitioners
were guilty of the charges. Considering the scope of the departmental
inquiry and the burden of proof, the inquiry officer has taken a
Trupti 13 __WP-5406 of 2019 CON.PETITIONS.doc
possible view of the matter, and the Respondents, Railway
Authorities, after considering the gravity of the charges, have
imposed the proper punishment of removal from service. Regarding
the Petitioners' appeals and revision, the Appellate and Revisional
Authority have rejected them with a reasoned order. It is not possible
to sit in further appeal to re-appreciate the evidence and render a
factual finding, overruling the one already rendered. The learned
Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the appeals, there are
references to the pendency of the criminal trial as the ground for
rejection and contended that the Respondents themselves have
admitted that there is no difference between the departmental
inquiry and the criminal trial. This submission cannot be accepted.
The statement in the appeals cannot be considered as an admission
by the Respondents from contending otherwise. It is the Petitioners,
after acquittal, who are seeking reinstatement, whose prayer has been
rejected. While defending themselves, the Respondents, Railway
Authorities, can always contend that there is a difference between the
departmental inquiry and the criminal trial in the Petitioners' case.
14. Hence, no case is made out for interference in writ
jurisdiction. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
