Ranjit Harijan vs Union of India and Others

Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.—Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that a disciplinary proceedings was drawn against the writ petitioner. He was issued a show cause notice. He replied to it. Enquiry Authority discharged him from the charge of theft. However, the disciplinary authority differed. There was no reason for such difference. The writ petitioner moved this Hon''ble Court. This Court directed the authority to issue fresh second show-cause notice. Accordingly, fresh show-cause notice was issued. The disciplinary authority was given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order of removal/dismissal was passed. The order of removal/dismissal is set out hereunder. R.O. No. 259/91 Dated 31-5-91,

Perused the Record and findings arrived at by the E.O. Sri N.N. Biswas, IPF/HWG and the reply of the show cause notice submitted by the delinquent C/7886 Ranjit Harijan. The E.O. has held the delinquent not guilty of the charge "For gross neglect of duty in that while on escorting duty on train No. 334 DN Ex-Katwa to Howrah on 18.8.80, he failed to prevent/detect theft of 6 Nos. Battery from coach No. WGS 6850 attached to the train as well as he concealed the fact by manipulating DDR Book making all correct diary in the RPF Post."

I do not agree with the findings of the E.O. for the reasons:--

(1) There is no dispute over the matter that the train arrived Howrah with only six Nos. of cells, HR-2647 S.K. Bose while he checked the coach No. WGS 6850 of the train No. 334 DN at Howrah P.F. No. 4 on 18.8.80 found only six Nos. of cells on arrival, which was followed by an CPRS-I8 dt.20.8.80. The overwriting on the DDR Book to put six on the place of 12 is nothing but an effort to make the deficiency good.

(2) While the enquiry conducted by the E.O.C/R. Harijan the delinquent could not produce any document or witness in support of his contention that he did manipulation in DDR Book only to rectify an error.

(3) In his return diary at OH/RPF Post HWH he did not mention that though he was given charge of 12 Nos. of cells at Katwa he found only 6 Nos. of cells and he had rectified entry in DDR Book accordingly which not only makes his explanation doubtful but also proves his guilty intention.

I have gone through the reply to show cause notice submitted by the delinquent. The reply does not reveal anything now. It does not exonerate the delinquent of the charges. It is evident from the enquiry report of the E.O., records, statements of P.Ws. and reply to the charge-sheet, given by delinquent C/7886 Ranjit Harijan, that on failing to prevent and detect theft of 6 Nos. of cells from coach No. 6850 of 334 DN on 18-8-80. C/7886 R. Harijan did manipulation in DDR Book, only to conceal the theft.

Therefore, I hold C/7886 Ranjit Harijan guilty of the charge. Hence Sri. Ranjit Harijan delinquent Constable No. 7886 is imposed with punishment of removal from service w.e.f. 15.6.91 as proposed earlier in show cause notice of even No. dated 14.12.90 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41 B and Rule 44 of RPF Rules 1959 read with Sec. 9 of RPF Act, 1957 i.e. old RPF Rules.

Against the removal/dismissal order the writ petitioner moved this writ petition. An interim order was obtained wherein the writ petitioner was directed to be paid monthly wages but he was directed not to perform duty. Railway authorities had to obey the order. However, it appears that in 2008 this Hon''ble Court in the order dated 19th August, 2008 expressed some remarks upon the respondents who did not take any step for getting the writ petition heard. Now the matter is placed for final disposal, when one month time is left to reach the date of retirement.

Mr. Chakraborty submits that the first charge of theft was not proved before the Enquiry Officer. The second charge of manipulation was proved. He submitted that the order of removal was passed. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is dis-proportionate to the penalty imposed. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that this is also contrary to the rules. He also submitted that there are judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court wherein it was held that in case of disproportionate punishment, the Hon''ble Court should interfere and take appropriate decision.

Mr. Chakraborty cited one decision reported in 2013 SC 2908 and the other one reported in Sengara Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, Citing the decisions Mr. Chakraborty submitted that it is now well settled that the Courts would interfere only when punishment is outrageously disproportionate to gravity of misconduct.

Mr. Chakraborty submitted that the order should be set aside and the petitioner should be allowed to join his duties.

Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as per the order passed by this Hon''ble Court, the second show-cause notice was issued. He was given opportunity of hearing and the proceedings continued as per the rules prevailing. He submitted that the writ petitioner is responsible for such manipulation which was proved and the punishment inflected upon him is a proper punishment.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials available on records. It is evident that the charge of theft is not proved, however, the manipulation part is proved and the writ petitioner was removed. It appears to this court that the order of removal is really disproportionate against the charge which is proved against the delinquent employee. It is also to note that the other employee who was similarly placed like the petitioner was exonerated from the charges and has already been reinstated. Therefore the respondents'' action is discriminatory and not in accordance with law. In my view the employee concerned should be reinstated. However, since the charge of manipulation is proved against him the respondent authorities are directed to stop two increments on and from 1995 onwards. The order of removal is set aside. The writ petitioner is directed to join his duties in course of this week and the respondents are directed to allow the writ petitioner to join his duties.

The learned advocate on record of Mr. Bose is directed to communicate this order for compliance.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. All parties concerned are to act on a photostat signed copy of the operative portion of this order on the usual undertakings.