WP/9589/2004 of M. Venkat Rao, Vs The Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, on 27 December 2005

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri J.M.Naidu the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.S.Sanghithe learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner assails the initiation of disciplinary inquiry by the issuance of the charge-sheet dated.29-03-2004 accompanied by a statement of charges andallegations alleging four species of charges against the petitioner, a Sub-Inspectorof the Railway Protection Force. By the impugned charge sheet the petitioner hasbeen intimated that one V.Seshadri, Assistant Security Commissioner-ED isappointed as an Inquiry Officer. This paragraph of the charge sheet makesinteresting reading and is reproduced accordingly:

“Sri V.Seshadri, ASC.cum ED is nominated as enquiry officer/I willconduct the enquiry myself”

Apparently the 1[st] respondent-the author of the impugned charge sheet dated 29-03-2004 did not consider it necessary to employ any effort to modify the printedformat of a charge sheet to accord with the decision to delegate the function ofconducting the inquiry to an inquiry officer as against the other option of himselfconducting the inquiry as the disciplinary authority. The printed format of the chargesheet contains both the options. He has retained both. He has merely included thename of V.Seshadri the Assistant Security Commissioner as an inquiry officer inthe earlier option format, which is left blank in the format. Such a conduct in asolemn proceedings like a disciplinary inquiry must be considered as vagrant andcompulsively indicative of abdication of care and application of mind.

Be that as it may, the petitioner’s grievance and contention is that therespondents have proceeded to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against him evenwithout issuing a show-cause notice, receiving his explanation and thereuponarriving at a satisfaction as to whether the circumstances call for initiation ofdisciplinary inquiry. According to the petitioner’s understanding whenever adisciplinary inquiry is to be initiated with the object of eventually imposing a majorpenalty if the circumstances so warrant, it is imperative that the charged employeemust first be given an opportunity communicating the prima facie allegationsagainst him, receiving his explanation and thereafter alone determining whethereven after the explanation, circumstances exist warranting initiation of an inquiry.This assumption of the petitioner is canvassed on the platform of Rule.153(3) of theRailway Protection Force Rules,1987, Chapter XI whereof deals with disciplineand conduct. Rule 153 occurs in Chapter XI. Rule 153(3), on which reliance isplaced by the petitioner, reads as under:

“ On receipt of complaint or otherwise, the disciplinary authority on going through thefacts alleged or brought out shall decide whether it is a case for major or minorpunishment. No attempt shall be made to convert cases punishable under Section 16-Aor Sec.17 into disciplinary cases nor divert cases in respect of which majorpunishments are imposable to the category of cases where minor or petty punishmentsare imposable.”

Sec.153(2)(i) is also relevant and reads as under:- “ Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds forinquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against anenrolled member of the Force, it may itself inquire into, or appoint an Inquiry Officerhigher in rank to the enrolled member charged but not below the rank of Inspector, orinstitute a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the truth thereof.”

On a true and fair construction of the statutory position above, it does notappear to be the legislative intent that prior to the disciplinary authority arriving atthe satisfaction or opinion that there exist grounds for inquiring into the truth of anyimputation of misbehaviour against an enrolled member of the Force, anopportunity should be provided to such member of the Force, his explanationsolicited and thereafter alone the opinion arrived at. In the absence of any suchprocedural vigour imposed by the statutory rules and there being no suchrequirement emanating from the mandate of Articles 14,16 and 311 of theConstitution, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner thatsuch a pre inquiry or what could euphemistically be termed a curtain-raiser inquiryis a sine qua non for initiation of a regular inquiry. The satisfaction or the opinionarrived at by the disciplinary authority is a decision on the basis of a complaint orother information that comes to the notice of the disciplinary authority and on thebasis of which the disciplinary authority forms an opinion. By such exclusiveformation of opinion by the disciplinary authority and without the assistance of thecharged officer, no prejudice is caused to the charged officer as a full fledgedinquiry is to be initiated where a major penalty is the goal. In the event of suchregular inquiry, the petitioner has a plenitude of opportunities of rebutting theevidence marshalled against him by the employer or to lead his own evidence insubstantiation of whatever defence he desires to put in opposition to the case of theemployer. Therefore either on first principles or on the basis of the statutory rules itdoes not appear to this Court that the employer is required to issue to the petitionera pre-inquiry show-cause notice, receive his explanation and consider the same before determining or forming an opinion as to the need or necessity of conductingan inquiry into imputations of misconduct against a charged member of the RailwayProtection Force.

Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of a learned singleJudge of the Calcutta High Court in Sanjoy Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India &Ors() . In the said case the Calcutta High Court was dealing with a challenge to anorder of removal from service by a member of the Railway Protection Force. Theremoved employee had also unsuccessfully pursued a departmental appeal. In thecontext of assailing the order of removal, the member of the Force had challengedbefore the Calcutta High Court, several steps in the disciplinary inquiry includingthe order of removal, commencing from the issuance of a charge sheet andproceeding to the conclusion by the final order and the appellate order. It is in thecourse of considering such several and distinct challenges to the departmentalproceedings that the observations were made in paragraph 12 of the SLR report.As is apparent from the judgment (appearing at paragraph 14 of the SLR Report)the fact of the memorandum of articles of charges itself containing the name of theinquiry officer and the venue and time fixed for inquiry was considered by theCalcutta High Court as an instance of prejudgment of the issue. This was in thecontext of a specific challenge to the departmental proceedings that the petitioner’sguilt was pre judged and the appointment of inquiry officer in the charge sheet itselfwas illustrative of such prejudgment.

In the case on hand, that is not the allegation. The contention is that theregular inquiry should be proceeded by a show-cause notice issued andexplanation solicited from the petitioner and on consideration of which alone anopinion could be found by the disciplinary authority whether a case exists or thecircumstances warrant initiation of a disciplinary inquiry. This Court has alreadyanalyzed supra that such is not the intendment of the statutory position under Rule153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules,1987.

On the aforesaid analysis this Court is unable to accept the contention of thepetitioner that the impugned charge sheet is vitiated by transgression of Rule 153of the Railway Protection Force Rules,1987.

The conduct of the 1[st] respondent in signing the printed format of the chargesheet without any application of mind is clearly negligent. Very often it is such negligent and careless functioning of the discipline authority that leads to abortedinquiries or disciplinary inquiries being set aside, to the detriment of public interest.Officers who have neither the patience nor the care and concern to modify printedformats to suit particular circumstances and in disciplinary inquiries ought not to beentrusted the onerous and delicate function of a disciplinary authority. Suchentrustment will subvert the discipline of the administration and eventually publicinterest as often times it is such callous negligent and laidback approach todisciplinary proceedings that results in the invalidity of disciplinary inquiry. ThisCourt therefore considers it appropriate that costs in an amount of Rs.500/-(rupeesfive hundred only) be imposed on the 1[st] respondent for a negligent drafting of thecharge-sheet memo. The amount of Rs.500/- shall be paid by the 1[st] respondent tothe A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within a period of two (2)weeks.

On the substantive analyses above however, this Court finds no warrant forinterference in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

_________________

GODA RAGHURAM,J

27[th] December, 2005

*TSNR