Harjinder Singh vs Govt. of India and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner was a constable in the Railway Protection Force, Ambala. He was deployed for election duty in Punjab and Uttaranchal by order dated 22.1.2007. During election duty in Tarn Taran, District Amritsar he absconded, better put, he ran away from the Amritsar Railway Station taking with him his service Carbine and ammunition with a spare magazine issued to him a Constable. Accordingly, a Daily Diary Report (DDR) entry No. 17 and 18 was recorded in the roznamcha of the 3rd BN/D Election Company on 14.2.2007 for disobeying lawful orders of a superior and for remaining absent from duty without information and authority even after he was personally detailed to proceed to Muradabad/Rudarpur, Uttaranchal for further election duty. He remained absent for two days from 14.2.2007 to 16.2.2007 from duty. Election duty in Punjab ended on 13.2.2007. The staff on election duty reached Amritsar from Tarn Taran on 14.2.2007. The staff had been instructed to proceed onward to Muradabad by Train No. 3050 and from Muradabad to Rudarpur City by the first available train. Before arrival of the train at Amritsar station all the RPF/RPSF staff were made to Fall in and when Roll Call was conducted at the Amritsar Railway Station, it was discovered that the petitioner was absent from duty without any prior information. A party was deputed to know of the whereabouts of the petitioner and an entry No. 27 at 17.30 hrs. was made in RPF Out Post roznamcha, Batala on 15.2.2007 authorizing the party to proceed to the residence of the petitioner at Batala. He was found at home with the weapon and ammunition. He was brought back by two constables to Ambala post on 16.2.2007. This is the story propounded by the petitioner.

The petitioner was accordingly charge-sheeted on 12.3.2007 for violation of Rule 3(ii)(iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1963 for acts unbecoming of a member of the armed forces of the Union of India. Charges under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 were also levelled against him. Rules 145 and 146 of the 1987 Rules govern conduct and behaviour expected from members of the force. Absence without leave or to be late for any duty is classified as Neglect of Duty classified as misconduct under the rules. Rule 146.3 deals with disobedience of orders. Rule 147 is the charging provision which deals with offences relatable to duties of enrolled members of service. Absence without proper information to the Controlling Authority or without sufficient cause overstaying leave not granted is a serious misconduct.

In the disciplinary enquiry that followed the charge was proven after following due procedure at the enquiry proceedings. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offense committed, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service with immediate effect by order dated 20.8.2007. The appeal against the punishment order was rejected on 26.2.2008. Aggrieved by the order of removal and the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner carried a revision petition on 15.3.2008 which was turned down by the Chief Security Commissioner/RPF, Northern Railways, New Delhi by order dated 30.5.2008.

After unexplained delay of three and half years, the present writ petition has been filed on 28.11.2011 impugning the three orders inflicting major punishment of removal from service.

A story has been concocted by the petitioner before the Administrative, Appellate and Revisional Authorities that on 13.2.2007 while on election duty the petitioner slipped and fell down and his right shoulder and suffered internal injury because of it. In this condition, he says that he presented himself before the In-charge ASI Raja Ram who did not listen to him or care to provide first aid or other medical help. In this condition, he says that he reached the Amritsar Railway Station on 14.2.2007 where he requested the next superior officer i.e. ASE/RPSF and asked for issue of G-92 orders for deposit of arm and ammunition to enable him to get treatment from Railway Hospital, Amritsar. He says that he made a written application which the officer tore to pieces with the remark that during election duty there is no scope of any medical treatment or depositing of arm and ammunition. He then proceeded to Batala for getting desi ilag/treatment from some local pehalwan, the medicine man at the village level. He was treated by that pehalwan and he was ready after treatment to leave for Amritsar on 15.2.2007, and the Railway Protection Force Staff reached his home and asked for him and his arms and ammunition taken on the run. That is how he was escorted to Ambala and his arms duly deposited with Police Post Railways at Ambala. He again requested for G-92 order which decision accords permission to RAF employees to get treatment from Railway Hospitals. G-92 order was issued on 19.2.2007. An X-ray is said to been taken on 20.2.2007 at Railway Hospital on an outdoor ticket. He was diagnosed for dislocation of the right shoulder. He was advised three weeks rest. The record of his medical treatment has been produced as annexure P-1 collectively obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005.

In the written statement filed by the Central Government, the story spun by the petitioner that two named constables went to Batala to arrest the petitioner is false. No one was deputed to hunt for the petitioner at Batala. It was Sub-Inspector Satnam Singh and HC Gopal Dass of RPF Out Post Batala of Ferozepur Division, who were deputed to visit the residence of the petitioner and that is how he was brought back. At the enquiry, the petitioner did not name any defence witness. It was a case of attempt to hide the actual incident in the view of the enquiry officer. The fact of the matter is that during Fall-In at the Amritsar Railway Station through announcements on the public address system, the petitioner did not turn up during roll call to mark his presence. He was not there after all. But the petitioner has not been able to dislodge the fact that he had absconded with arms and ammunition without information to his superiors. This is a very serious offense viewed by the armed force.

I have gone through the enquiry report and the orders passed in appeal and revision. The seriousness of the charge is such that it cannot be brushed aside. The alleged injury received on 13.2.2007 was found not to be supported by any documentary evidence or by the deposition of witnesses. The Authorities have found without shadow of any reasonable doubt that the petitioner absconded with arms and ammunition for which they have chosen to inflict major penalty of removal from service.

No procedural unfairness has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the conduct of the enquiry against the petitioner. It is settled this Court does not sit in appeal on the findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Reliance placed on judgments in Radha Kishan Rajpal v. The Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana; 1994(1) S.C.T. 603 and State of Punjab v. Gurbachan Singh; 1997(1) S.C.T. 12 is misplaced which verdicts are clearly distinguishable in law and facts.

The out patient record relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner speaks against the petitioner. The Doctors have recorded "alleged dislocation (R) shoulder". Dr. Bharat Lal in the discharge certificate dated 23.3.2007 has recorded as follows:

Sub: Regarding Sh. Harjinder Singh/Constable/RPF/UMB

Ref Letter No. RPF/D&AR02/SRE/07 dt. 20.3.07 of SI/RPF Post/SRE

In reference to the above quoted letter it is to inform you that the above named was in my sick list w.e.f. 03.03.07 as a case of dislocation shoulder (allegedly)

He has been discharged from my sick list w.e.f. 2.303.07 on account of giving false declaration to the administration while reporting sick to the undersigned that no D&AR action is going on against him.

This is for you kind information and necessary action.

Sd/- (Dr. Bharat Lal) Sr. DMO/UMB

Enclosure Discharge Certificate No. 465372 date. 23.03.07

The story set up by the petitioner is therefore based on a false declaration to the Administration while reporting sick to Dr. Bharat Lal. If bed rest was advised for two weeks that by itself is not a mitigating circumstance to lower the quantum of punishment inflicted. No ground is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is consequently dismissed.