Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kuljit Singh Nanrah vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 March, 2021
08-03-2021
ct no. 13
Sl.5
sp
WPA 5553 of 2020
With
CAN 1 of 2020
Kuljit Singh Nanrah
-Versus-
Union of India & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder
...for the petitioner
Mr. R.N. Bag,
Mr. S.N. Dutta
...for the respondents
The respondents/RPF authorities have filed
the instant application CAN 1 of 2020 seeking
leave to pass final orders in disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner. When the writ
application was moved on June 22, 2020, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court permitted the
authorities to continue with the departmental
enquiry but not to pass final orders.
Opposing the prayer of the R. P. F., counsel
for the petitioner would argue that :-
(a) The Enquiry Officer was appointed
from out of jurisdiction of the
Disciplinary Authority and hence, the
enquiry proceedings themselves are
without jurisdiction.
(b) The Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer had
actually directed issuance of charge
sheet without authority. The
Disciplinary Authority, therefore,
mechanically proceeded in
commencing the proceedings against
the petitioner without independently
applying his mind.
(c) The charge sheet indicates pre-
determined intention of the RPF to
punish the petitioner. Hence, the entire
enquiry was, in fact, a sham.
(d) The preliminary enquiry report based
on which the charge sheet was issued,
was not supplied to the petitioner
despite specific request. The petitioner,
therefore, was prevented from
defending effectively in the enquiry.
(e) The petitioner also asked for other
additional documents for his defence,
which were denied to him and hence,
the proceedings are vitiated.
(f) In terms of the Rule for enquiry against
the petitioner, a charge sheet should
have been issued within a month of
suspension. The petitioner having been
kept in suspension for one long year,
was in a serious disability in defending
himself in the enquiry. Even
subsistence allowance was not paid to
the petitioner in time.
This Court notes that the Disciplinary
Authority was approached by the petitioner with
some of the aforesaid grievances and the same
have not been considered. Since the petitioner has
an effective alternative remedy in the form of
departmental appeal under the RPF Act, this court
is inclined to allow the Disciplinary Authority to
pass final orders prescribed under the aforesaid
RPF Act. If the petitioner prefers an appeal the
Appellate Authority shall take into consideration
the grievances of the writ petitioner maintained
hereinabove.
In addition thereto, the Appellate
Authority may also consider the other grounds
that the petitioner may urge before them.
It is made clear that this Court has not
entered into any of the specific grievances raised
by the petitioner since the Disciplinary Authority
and the Appellate Authority may do so. The said
Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority
shall proceed in accordance with law and in terms
of the RPF Rules, uninfluenced by any observation
made hereinabove.
It is also made clear that in the event,
any appeal being preferred by the petitioner
against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the
Appellate Authority shall mandatorily dispose of
the said appeal either within the time prescribed
under the statute or as expeditiously as possible
but preferably within a period of 45 days from
receipt thereof.
The interim order dated 22.06.2020
already passed in the matter shall stand modified
accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations, CAN 1 of
2020 is disposed of.
In view of the above, WPA 5553 of 2020 is
also disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this
judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties
upon compliance of all formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
