Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pran Krishna Roy vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 March, 2022
87 07.03.2022
Ct.15
W.P.A. 31018 of 2017
rkd
(IA NO: CAN 2/2021)
(Through Video Conference)
Pran Krishna Roy
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder,
Mr. Pratik Majumder
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Chatterjee
....for the respondents.
Affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner
today in Court is taken on record.
This is a writ petition whereby challenge
has been thrown to the charge sheet dated 11th
November, 2017 issued against the petitioner who
is working in the post of Inspector, Railway
Protection Force.
Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner submits that charge sheet dated
11th November, 2017 is devoid of list of documents
as well as list of witnesses by which articles of
charges are proposed to be sustained and
according to Mr. Majumder such issuance of
charge sheet without list of documents and list of
witnesses is contrary to Rule 153.4 of the Railway
Protection Force Rules, 1987(hereinafter referred to
as the said "Rules of 1987"). Therefore according to
the petitioner such charge sheet ought not survive.
It has further been submitted that if based on this
charge sheet dated 11th November, 2017 the
disciplinary authority would have initiated the
proceedings and concluded the same there would
have been gross violation of natural justice since
the petitioner had to defend himself without having
list of relevant documents and list of witnesses.
Placing reliance on Rule 153.4 of the Rules of 1987
it has been argued that the disciplinary authority is
required to act within the four corners of the
statute and failure to supply the list of documents
and list of witnesses vitiates issuance of impugned
charge sheet and in support of the same reliance
has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, reported in (2000) 3
SLR 202 (Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. -vs-
Amaresh Roy & Ors.)
Another limb of submission made on behalf
of the petitioner is that with closed mind such
charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner
and at the stage of issuing charge sheet
disciplinary authority concluded against the
petitioner which is contrary to all cannons of
disciplinary proceedings. It has further been
submitted that at the time of issuing charge sheet
the disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer
and the date and time of enquiry was also fixed
which the disciplinary authority is not authorized
to do before considering the reply of the petitioner
on receipt of charge sheet along with list of
documents and list of witnesses.
In addition thereto, Mr. Majumder has
argued that the official who issued the charge sheet
against the petitioner was not empowered to issue
such charge sheet therefore the same cannot be
allowed to stand and authorities should not be
allowed to proceed on the basis of such faulty
charge sheet and the concluding point which has
been taken on behalf of the petitioner is that since
the criminal proceeding is pending against the
petitioner both the criminal proceeding and the
disciplinary proceeding cannot be permitted to run
simultaneously when the nature of charges are
more or less same.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appears
on behalf of the Railway Authorities and submits
that one affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in
connection with the writ petition though affirmed
copy of such affidavit-in-opposition is not found on
record and Mr. Chatterjee during course of hearing
has handed over the copy of the said affidavit-in-
opposition wherein in paragraph 18 it has been
averred that the list of documents and list of
witnesses which were required to be supplied in
terms of Rule 153.4 have been handed over to the
petitioner on 1st February, 2018. Placing reliance
on such statement made in the affidavit-in-
opposition specially in paragraph 18 it has been
submitted since the documents which were
required to be supplied to the petitioner has been
done during the pendency of the writ petition; let
there be direction upon the authorities for
concluding the proceeding strictly in accordance
with law and on due observance of principles of
natural justice.
This Court has heard the learned advocates
representing the parties to this writ petition and
also perused the relevant documents available on
record including the copy of the affidavit-in-
opposition which has been placed before this Court
today during the course of hearing since the
affirmed affidavit-in-opposition is not available on
record which has been used on behalf of the
Railway Authorities. The copy of the said affidavit-
in-opposition is taken on record.
Crux of the issue as framed on behalf of the
writ petitioner is violation of Rule 153.4 (b)(ii) of the
Rules of 1987 whereby the disciplinary authority is
required to supply the list of documents and list of
witnesses while issuing charge sheet against the
petitioner and there should be an indication to that
extent in the charge sheet. For better
understanding Rule 153.4 is quoted below:
"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 misbehaviour 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,
(ii) a list of documents by
which and a list of
witnesses by whom the
articles of charge are
proposed to be sustained."
On mere perusal of said Rule 153.4 it is
clear that disciplinary authority is required to
supply the list of documents and list of witnesses
by which the authority proposes to substantiate the
allegations/charges levelled against the petitioner.
In the present case, on perusal of the charge sheet
dated 11th November, 2017, it appears that such
formality was not complied with. Considering the
submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner,
this Court also appreciates that there is a specific
requirement of providing list of documents and list
of witnesses to the petitioner at the time of issuing
charge sheet which has not been done in the
present case.
In Eastern Coalfields (Supra), the Hon'ble
Division Bench has also held that the statutory
authorities are required to act within the four
corners of the Statue in the matter of disciplinary
proceeding and in consideration of the view
expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench this Court
is also of the view that prior to initiation of enquiry
proceeding based on charge sheet in terms of said
Rule 153.4, disciplinary authority is required to
provide list of documents and list of witnesses and
those are required to be provided before offering
reply to the charge sheet by the petitioner.
On behalf of the petitioner, it has also been
argued that the charge sheet was issued with
closed mind and the disciplinary authority came to
the conclusion against the petitioner at the stage of
issuing charge sheet and the official who issued
charge sheet against the petitioner is not
empowered to issue such charge sheet in terms of
relevant provisions of Rules of 1987. Unfortunately,
on perusal of the writ petition, it does not appear to
this Court that any case has been made out in
support of these two issues and these points have
been taken for the first time before this Court
during hearing of the writ petition and it appears
that these are afterthought. Accordingly, this
Court is not required to answer these two issues.
This Court finds substance in the
contention of the petitioner that while issuing
charge sheet against the petitioner and prior to
consideration of the reply to the charge sheet to be
furnished by the petitioner, the disciplinary
authority ought not to have fixed the date of
enquiry and appointed enquiry officer which has
been done in the present case as it appears from
the impugned charge sheet dated 11th November,
2017.
It has also been contended that the
criminal proceeding and the disciplinary proceeding
cannot run simultaneously when the
allegations/charges are of similar nature in both
the proceedings.
This Court finds it apposite since list of
documents and list of witnesses have already been
supplied to the petitioner as it appears from
paragraph 18 of the affidavit-in-opposition and
those were acknowledged by the petitioner on 1st
February, 2018, therefore, there is substantial
compliance of the formalities which were required
to be followed in terms of said Rule 153.4 (b)(ii) and
accordingly grants liberty to the petitioner to
furnish reply to the charge sheet within a period of
thirty days from this date. The disciplinary
authority on receipt of such reply to the charge
sheet shall take decision whether there is
requirement to initiate disciplinary proceeding at all
and if it is decided that the authority will go on
with the disciplinary proceeding such decision shall
be taken by the disciplinary authority within a
period of fortnight from the date of receipt of reply
to the charge sheet from the petitioner and the
decision to be taken in terms of this order will be
communicated to the petitioner within a period of
seven days thereafter.
Petitioner will also be at liberty to take the
point of permissibility to continue with the
disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of the
criminal proceeding while offering reply to the
charge sheet in terms of this order and the
disciplinary authority shall also be required to
come to a definite conclusion on such issue while
taking decision on reply of the petitioner to the
charge sheet.
If ultimately disciplinary authority takes
decision to continue with the disciplinary
proceeding by holding enquiry after consideration
of reply to the charge sheet the authority shall be at
liberty to appoint enquiry officer and take other
necessary steps for conducting and concluding the
proceeding expeditiously. Therefore relevant part of
the impugned charge sheet whereby inquiry officer
is appointed is set aside.
With the above direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
In view of the order passed by this Court
today on the writ petition, the connected
application being CAN 2/2021 also stands disposed
of and the interim order passed by this Court
stands vacated.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order,
if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
