Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4849 Cal

Form No.J(2)


                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
               CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                        APPELLATE SIDE
Present :

The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury


                            WPA 25230 of 2007

                            Rakesh Kumar Mishra
                                     Vs.
                            Union of India & Ors.


For the petitioner      :       Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder
                                Mr. Ananya Adhikary

For the respondents     :       Mr. Subrata Roy

Heard on                :       8th August, 2023.

Judgment on             :       8th August, 2023.


Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The writ petition was filed, inter alia, challenging 4 several

charge-sheets 3 of them dated 16th October, 2007 and the other

dated 8th November, 2007.

2. The petitioner is an Inspector of Railway Protection Force of

Eastern Railway (hereinafter referred to as the "RPF") and at the

relevant point of time was posted at RPF Post, T.E. Coy, Malda

under Malda Division.

3. The petitioner contends that while he was posted at the

aforesaid RPF post, he was entrusted with a duty to conduct a

raid and to enquire a case of large number of cable theft from

Malda and submit a special report.

4. It is the petitioner's case that as per the direction of the Chief

Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway, the petitioner

conducted the raid and recovered 3079 metres of cable from 3

drums loaded in a wagon and accordingly a case was registered

at the Malda yard.

5. Following the recovery, the criminals involved in the said theft

were arrested and the petitioner had submitted his detailed

report. Since, according to the petitioner, certain RPF personnel

were involved in the aforesaid racket, the Chief Security

Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway by a supervisory note

dated 7th September, 2007, had directed to the Divisional

Security Commissioner to arrest the criminal gang responsible

and also directed disciplinary proceedings against RPF Officers

and staff found to be involved in the aforesaid offence.

6. According to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 with a

view to protect certain RPF staff and officers and to hush up the

aforesaid matter, had directed the petitioner to hand over all

documents in connection with the aforesaid incident. Such fact

would corroborate from the copy of the order issued by the

Deputy Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway, Malda

dated 24th September, 2007.

7. It is the petitioner's case that on 24th September, 2007, the

respondent no.4 issued an order of transfer thereby posting the

petitioner from T.E. Coy, Malda, to RPF post Bhagalpur. Such

order of transfer was issued despite, according to the petitioner,

the respondent no.4 having no power or jurisdiction to effect

such transfer. In the interregnum, the petitioner fell ill and was

treated by the District Medical Officer, Burdwan. Since then, the

petitioner had brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of the

Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway, by his

letter dated 27th September, 2007. The petitioner states that

Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway with a

view to victimize the petitioner had issued 3 several charge-

sheets all dated 16th October, 2007. The same was followed up

by another charge-sheet dated 8th November, 2007.

8. Challenging the aforesaid charge-sheets, the present writ

petition has been filed.

9. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate representing the petitioner, by

referring to the aforesaid charge-sheets, inter alia, including the

charge-sheet dated 8th November, 2007, submits that while

issuing the aforesaid charge-sheets, the respondents themselves

had made up their mind to hold an enquiry against the

petitioner and to punish him. No show-cause notice was issued

prior to issuance of the charge-sheets and no opportunity was

given to the petitioner to explain his conduct.

10. By further referring to the charge-sheet dated 8th November,

2007, he submits that the Disciplinary Authority, had already

while issuing the charge-sheet, held the petitioner guilty of the

charges. The mind set of the Disciplinary Authority is apparent

from the statement of allegation in the charge-sheets where the

Disciplinary Authority has, inter alia, recorded as follows:-

"The whole episode clearly indicates IPF/R. K. Mishra did his some own gains and for compelling the competent/controlling/Disciplinary Authority too i.e. DSC to face embarrassing situation".

11. Mr. Majumder still further submits that even before the

petitioner could responded to the charge-sheets, the

Disciplinary Authority had appointed the Enquiry Officer. Such

fact would appear from page 61 of the writ petition.

12. When the writ petition was moved, a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, taking into consideration the principles laid down in the

case of State of Punjab vs. V. K. Khanna & Ors., reported in

AIR 2001 SC 343 was, inter alia, pleased to pass an interim

order in favour of the petitioner thereby, restraining the

respondents from further proceedings on the basis of the

aforesaid charge-sheets dated 16th October, 2007 and 8th

November, 2007. Affidavits have since been exchanged.

13. Subsequently, when the aforesaid matter came up for

consideration, after arguing the matter for some time, Mr. Roy,

learned advocate representing the respondents, submits on

instructions that though, the respondents have used an affidavit

denying all material allegations, however, since the enquiry

could not be proceeded by reasons of the interim order and to

put an end to the controversy at hand, the respondents are

willing to withdraw the aforesaid charge-sheets with liberty to

proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

14. In view of the fair stand taken by Mr. Roy, learned advocate

representing the respondents, I am of the view that the writ

petition can be disposed of by quashing the aforesaid charge-

sheets, however, at the same time, by granting liberty to the

respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance

with law in respect of the self same allegations forming subject

matter of the charges.

15. In view thereof, the three charge-sheets all dated 16th October,

2007 and the charge-sheet dated 8th November, 2007 issued by

the respondent no.4 stand quashed and/or set aside.

16. The aforesaid order, however, shall not stand in the way of the

respondents proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the

selfsame allegations, forming subject matter of the charges, if so

advised in accordance with law, after following the principles of

natural justice.

17. With the aforesaid observations/directions the writ petition

stands disposed of.

18. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

sb.