Delhi High Court
Vikas vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 June, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26th June, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 3764/2020 & CM No.13460/2020 (for stay)
VIKAS .... PETITIONER
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv.
for R-1.
Jitendra Kumar Singh, Adv. R-2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM No.13461/2020 (for exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavits
and requisite court fees).
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3764/2020 & CM No.13460/2020 (for stay)
3. The challenge by the petitioner, working as a Constable in Railway
Protection Special Force (RPSF), in this petition, is to the chargesheet dated
2nd March, 2020 initiating major penalty departmental proceedings against
him.
W.P.(C) No.3764/2020 Page 1 of 6
4. Writ jurisdiction ordinarily cannot be invoked with respect to each and
every stage of a departmental enquiry, or against a chargesheet and the
charged officer is required to participate in the departmental enquiry and
challenge only the ultimate decision, if aggrieved therefrom. If challenge to
each and every stage of proceedings in a departmental enquiry is entertained,
no enquiry would ever be concluded and the same would also result in
multiplicity of litigation. Only when any stage of the departmental enquiry is
shown to be contrary to Rules or otherwise resulting in irreparable prejudice,
can the challenge be entertained.
5. The petitioner however has pleaded, that (i) a Memorandum dated 5th
July, 2018, under Section 9(I)(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Protection Force
Act, 1985 (RPF Act) read with Rule 158 of the Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1987 (RPF Rules), was issued to the petitioner for imposing minor
punishment upon him; (ii) the gravamen of the allegation against the
petitioner was that the petitioner, without obtaining any written consent from
the competent authority, had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from Constable
Devender who had collected the said amount from 33 colleagues, for
instituting a case for transfer of RPSF personnel to Railway Protection
Force; (iii) the petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid Memorandum dated 5th
July, 2018, denying the charge; (iv) however the defence of the petitioner
was not accepted and the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 31st
August, 2018 held the petitioner guilty of charge and imposed penalty upon
the petitioner, of withholding of next increment without corresponding
postponement of subsequent increments, for a period of one year; (v) the
petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated
17th October, 2018, reduced the punishment to, withholding of next
W.P.(C) No.3764/2020 Page 2 of 6
increment without corresponding postponement of subsequent increments,
for six months; (vi) on 24th July, 2019, the Revisional Authority of the
petitioner issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 219.4 of
the RPF Rules, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the
punishment should not be enhanced; and, (vii) thereafter, much belatedly, on
2nd March, 2020, a chargesheet under Section 9(i) of RPF Act read with Rule
153 of RPF Rules was issued to the petitioner for imposing major
punishment upon him.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid is in violation of
Rule 219.4 of RPF Rules, proviso whereto prohibits revision, after one year
of expiry of the order.
7. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner who has also drawn our
attention to Rule 219.4 of RPF Rules, which is as under:
"219.4 Any authority superior to the authority making the original
order may, on its own motion, or otherwise, call for the records
of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules and
may:-
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or
(b) confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the punishment
imposed by the order, or impose any punishment where
no punishment has been imposed; or
(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or
to any other authority directing such authority to make
such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the
circumstances of the case; or
(d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit:
W.P.(C) No.3764/2020 Page 3 of 6
Provided that no action under this sub-rule shall be initiated
after the expiry of one year from the date of the order
aforesaid:
Provided further that no proceeding for revision shall be
commenced until after-
(i) the expiry of the period for making an appeal specified
in subsection (2) of section 9 ; or
(ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has
been preferred :
Provided further that in a case in which it is proposed to
enhance punishment further, the aggrieved member shall be
given an opportunity to show cause either orally or in writing
as to why his punishment should not be enhanced."
[Emphasis added]
8. We have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, how
the initiation of powers by the Revisional Authority, in the present case, is
after one year from the date of order of the Appellate Authority; the order of
the Appellate Authority is of 17th October, 2018 and the show cause notice
issued by the Revisional Authority is within one year therefrom i.e. of 24th
July, 2019.
9. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the initiation by the
Revisional Authority within the meaning of first proviso to Rule 219.4
would be, on the date of issuance of the chargesheet, and not on the date of
issuance of the show cause notice.
10. We have however drawn the attention of the counsel for the petitioner
to the proviso to the third proviso of Rule 219.4, which also provides for
issuance of show cause notice, and enquired, that once the Rule itself
W.P.(C) No.3764/2020 Page 4 of 6
provides for issuance of a show cause notice before initiation of proceedings
in exercise of powers under Rule 219.4 of the RPF Rules, how it can be said
that the initiation is not by issuance of the show cause notice but by issuance
of chargesheet.
11. No answer has been forthcoming.
12. The counsel for the petitioner then states that the show cause notice
required reply thereto to be given within 30 days, which expired on 23rd
August, 2019 or thereabout, and the chargesheet has been issued after long
delay therefrom, on 2nd March, 2020.
13. There is however no time period prescribed in the Rule aforesaid, for
issuance of chargesheet after the show cause notice. The counsel for the
petitioner also has not shown any other Rule or requirement to the said
effect. In the absence thereof, challenge in this writ petition cannot be made
on the ground of delay in issuing the chargesheet after receipt of reply to the
show cause notice. It is also not the case that the said delay even if any has
caused any prejudice to the petitioner. It has also not been pleaded that the
respondents, by delaying the issuance of the chargesheet, have gained any
advantage. It will however be open to the petitioner to, if so deems
appropriate, take the said ground in the reply to the chargesheet.
14. The counsel for the petitioner then contends that the Revisional
Authority has exercised powers beyond that conferred on it under Rule 219.4
supra.
W.P.(C) No.3764/2020 Page 5 of 6
15. The counsel however fairly admits that no such ground has been
pleaded or taken in the petition.
16. We thus find, the sole ground on which this writ petition has been
filed i.e. of initiation of proceedings under Rule 219.4 of the RPF Rules
beyond the period permitted thereby, to be not made out.
17. There is no merit in the petition.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
JUNE 26, 2020
'gsr'..
