Telangana High Court

T.Mohan Rao, Moulai, Hyderabad . vs The Director, Railway Protection ... on 26 April, 2024

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                  WRIT PETITION No.10489 of 2006

ORDER:

Petitioner is seeking to quash the charge sheet, dated 27.10.2004 and

all the further proceedings imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement on him.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection

Special Force in the year 1988 and promoted as a Head Constable in

December, 2001 and was compulsorily retired on 25.01.2006. The

allegation against the petitioner was that on 22.09.2004 while working as a

Head Constable and performing the Train Escort Duty on Train No.3330

between Gaya and Dhanbad demanded an amount of Rs.5,000-00 from a

passenger by name Abhay Singh and collected Rs.400-00 forcibly through

Constable Tarle B.K. by threatening the said passenger to be booked for

travelling without ticket and harassed him throughout the night and also

threatened to encounter him. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, and

thereafter, a regular inquiry was initiated, in which, the petitioner had

participated. After concluding the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held that the 2 JS, J

charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Therefore, the

punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. Questioning

the same, the petitioner had filed appeal, which was dismissed. The 2nd

appeal preferred by him was rejected on the ground that no 2nd appeal is

maintainable as per Rules and only revisions are maintainable.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer conducted the

inquiry in a biased manner by boring grudge against him, as he complained

against him on earlier occasion. He stated that the persons travelling in the

train at the time of alleged incident were not examined in the preliminary

inquiry proceedings by the Inquiry Officer and that the documents

produced during the proceedings were not marked. It is also contended

that the complainant Mr.Abhay Singh had withdrawn the complaint during

the inquiry proceedings, however, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with

inquiry and held the charges levelled against him as proved. It is also

contended that the Appellate Authority had passed cryptic and non-

speaking order confirming the punishment imposed on him, without

considering the contentions raised by him. It is further contended that no

such incident of demanding amount from the complainant had taken place.

It is also his case that Mr.B.K.Tarle, Constable 7869 had addressed a letter

to the Inquiry Officer stating that the statement given by him on 3 JS, J

25.09.2004 against the petitioner was given on being threatened by the

Company Commandant and the Sub-Inspector/Mr.S.Ramachandran.

Therefore, he prayed to set aside the charge sheet and the consequential

orders passed against him.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed in the vacate petition. The service

of petitioner and the duties assigned to him are admitted in the counter

affidavit. It is stated in the counter that the preliminary inquiry is a fact-

finding one, which is a step to ascertain the facts. It is stated that it is for

the preliminary Inquiry Officer to decide as to whom he has to examine to

find the basic facts of the issue. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that

the complainant and his co-passenger / Rajendra Saha were not examined

during preliminary inquiry, cannot be accepted, as they were examined

during the main inquiry proceedings. Similarly certain persons, who were

not examined during preliminary inquiry, were examined during the main

inquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that inquiry is vitiated.

6. With regard to non-marking of exhibits, it is stated by the

respondents that though the documents were not marked by assigning

exhibit numbers, the said documents were produced during the inquiry

proceedings and the petitioner was given opportunity to peruse the same

and put-forth his case against those documents. Therefore, the inquiry 4 JS, J

cannot be vitiated merely on the ground of not marking the documents.

The respondents have denied the contention of petitioner that he was not

given the opportunity of cross-examining the complainant and his co-

passenger and stated that all the witnesses examined during the inquiry

proceedings were cross-examined by the petitioner. It is also stated that

the contention of petitioner that Devendra Singh/CT Bodyguard of DSC

travelling in the same train had stated in the departmental inquiry that no

incident had happened, cannot be taken into account, as the said

Bodyguard had come into the compartment after the incident was over.

7. The punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner

is also sought to be justified by the respondents by stating that the

petitioner being entrusted with the duty of protecting the safety of the

passengers, behaved like a terrorist with a weapon in his possession. With

regard to withdrawal of complaint by the complainant, it is contended by

the respondents that mere withdrawal of complaint cannot nullify the acts

committed by the petitioner, and further, it is contended that while

withdrawing the complaint, the complainant did not state that he was

withdrawing the complaint, as it was falsely given. It is the case of

respondents that the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal only

after considering the petitioner's contentions and therefore, it cannot be 5 JS, J

said that it was dismissed by cryptic and non-speaking order. It is further

contended that the scope of revision is very limited and the second appeal

preferred by the petitioner cannot be treated as a revision and accordingly

it was rejected and the same was also intimated to the petitioner. Thus,

contending that as the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved in

the departmental proceedings, the punishment of compulsory retirement

was rightly imposed on him and no interference is required in the matter.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. The service of petitioner in the Railway Protection Special Force

and the duties assigned to him in the train in question are not in dispute.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded an amount of

Rs.5000-00 from the complainant / passenger of the train and ultimately

collected Rs.400-00 from him. A preliminary inquiry was conducted into

the matter on the complaint given by the complainant and as a prima facie

case was found in such preliminary inquiry, a regular departmental inquiry

was initiated. The contention of petitioner that the persons who were

travelling in the train were not examined during the preliminary inquiry,

cannot be accepted as the preliminary inquiry will be conducted only to

prima facie ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint. Only

when prima facie material is available, the regular inquiry will be initiated.

6 JS, J

Therefore, the respondents, on finding that there was prima facie evidence

on the allegations made against the petitioner, have ordered for regular

inquiry, during which, all the persons connected with the incident were

examined. The contention of petitioner that the complainant himself had

withdrawn the complaint during the inquiry proceedings, therefore, the

inquiry should not have been conducted against him, also cannot be

accepted, as by that time, sufficient evidence was available against the

petitioner in respect of the charges levelled against him. Further, the

withdrawal letter of complainant dated 23.05.2005, speaks that the

petitioner be excused but it does not say that the complainant has given a

false complaint against the petitioner. Thus, the complaint was withdrawn

with a request to excuse the petitioner. It is to be seen that once a

misconduct is brought to the notice of the authorities and sufficient

evidence has come to light, it is up to the authorities either to punish or

excuse the delinquent. In view of the serious allegation levelled against

the petitioner, which is unbecoming of an employee of disciplinary force,

the authorities concerned have proceeded against the petitioner and the

same cannot be faulted with.

9. Coming to the other contention of petitioner that Mr.B.K.Tarle,

Constable had addressed a letter to the Inquiry Officer stating that the 7 JS, J

statement given by him on 25.09.2004 against the petitioner was given on

being threatened by the Company Commandant and the Sub-Inspector/

Mr.S.Ramachandran, it is to be seen that once a statement was given

before the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry proceedings, it is not open for

the witness to contend, that too, by way of subsequent letter, that such

statement was given by him under threat. The statement once given during

the inquiry would be final and it is not known as to what prevented him

from taking such plea of threat before the Inquiry Officer himself during

the course of inquiry. The subsequent letter cannot nullify the statement of

the witness given during the inquiry proceedings. Therefore, this

contention of petitioner also cannot be accepted.

10. The learned counsel for respondents has relied on the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur 1, wherein,

it is held as under:

"A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant material, if it is reasonable inference from proved facts. A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

As there are limits to the powers exercised by a Single Judge under Article 226 of the

(1972) 4 Supreme Court Caes 618 8 JS, J

Constitution, there are limits to the powers of a Division Bench while sitting in appeal over the judgment of a Single Judge. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which material may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to arrive at an independent finding at the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court".

11. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another v. N.Gangaraj 2 and

in Union of India and others v. P.Gunasekaran 3. In these two

judgments, it is held that the power of judicial review conferred on

Constitutional Court or Tribunal is not that of an Appellate Authority but is

confined only to decision making process. It is also held that only when

the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority is not supported by

evidence or is unreasonably arrived at, Writ Court can interfere with

finding of disciplinary authority.

12. The aforesaid three judgments relied on by the learned counsel for

respondents are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this

case also, the inquiry has been conducted as per Rules and the petitioner